Cheaters, cokeheads and liars galore. Potheads, misogynists, alcoholics and serial abusers. No, this isn't a round-up of your dorm freshman year, I'm talking about who we as a nation have the great privilege of choosing from for our next president.
Yes, one of the added charms of each election cycle is getting to take a field trip down Holy sh*t Lane with any number of candidates running for the highest office in the land. Forget about their actual political ideology or plans for our reeling nation, there's no time for that crap when there's such a glut of human shortcomings, awful habits and downright criminal acts to sift through.
Bill Clinton - I didn't inhale. Or, bone her.
George Bush Jr. - Come on, fellas, I haven't nose candy blackout partied in years, I think.
Obama - How are you gonna judge me by the people I work or pray with?
To most recently...
Ding Dong (Doorbell)
USA: Who is it?
HC: Pizza Man, Herman Cain. Here with a fresh delivery of sausage for your American pie.
USA: (to self) I knew we should have ordered Chinese.
Yes, Mr. Cain has graced us with "Hell no, I didn't shove that lady's face in my crotch. Or, matter of fact, that lady's face or that lady's face or that lady and/or the future ladies that will accuse me in the coming weeks. All of whom I've never met. AND my wife can vouch for that - so there!"
The question is, how do we as individuals decide what to overlook ? What to dispel as horseh*t? How do we choose what to cast away as rumor or smear campaign. What is insignificant. Baseless? Negligible? Old news if news at all?
The most obvious answer, I suppose, is we decide by party lines. If you like a candidate's agenda or political affiliation you'll find a way of not believing the pesky facts associated with him or her. Or you'll shrink its significance to a speck of dandruff on your man's moral shoulders.
But other factors are greatly in play too. If you're a woman and your candidate's a woman you may look the other way if she's say, embroiled in corrupt business dealings. If you're a New Yorker and your man's a New Yorker you might brush off a scandal. If you're black and he's black, you may find yourself more forgiving. If you're a vet and he's a vet; a Mormon and a Mormon; A Jew and a Jew; Evangelical and an Evangelical; Hair enthusiast and nice-haired; etc. and etc.
We do this in our personal lives too. We may downgrade a family member's abusive nature because it feels like we should. We may chalk up a boyfriend's drug habit to a minor concern. How about our cool bosses penchant for slapping asses and staring at boobies? That's just Doug being Doug, right?
I imagine it's just human nature to side with and defend those we feel are an extension or reflection of us. Self-serving logic at its best: I'm a good person so how could this person I like be bad? If he's bad and I like him, then that makes me bad. So he's not bad. Voila.
I do realize that not all of these allegations or past behaviors are equal in weight. For example I could give a sh*t if my president smoked pot, but I do care if they were once a college cheerleader.
How about you reader? Weigh in on this one. Yes, I know leaving a comment on this site can --at times -- be harder than coal mining, but dig in. Let your voice be heard; it's the American way.
Have you bent the rules of right and wrong to fit your world?
Let anyone off the hook to accommodate your personal or ideological needs?
What is forgivable in a leader's past? And what ain't?
Do we expect too much from these people?
Is it a forgone conclusion that anyone who runs for high office has got to be high or deeply awful in some major way to begin with?
For me, I care about his/her ability to get the job done. They need a day off to f* up just like everyone else and it's crazy to think that anyone can get that far in life politically and not stray from the road of perfection.
And as someone who has had my personal life falsely attacked in a professional atmosphere by vindictive coworkers, I have sympathy and don't believe half of what I hear, and what's more.... I don't care. As long as it doesn't compromise their ability to do their job; go blow off some steam, or whatever else you want to blow.
Forgivable: Youthful indiscretions like smoking pot. Unforgivable: Crimes that actually hurt someone, like just about any sex crime. Forgivable: Hiring illegals and paying them properly. Unforgivable: Hiring said illegal without proper pay; general corruption. Depends on the other candidate(s): adultery, etc. - it speaks ill of him/her and could make it harder for outsiders to take him/her seriously, but it doesn't relate to his/her ability to do his/her job.
Basically, I expect leaders to have the knowledge and ability to do their jobs properly. If they don't have that knowledge when they start out, they'd better be willing to admit it and accept the advice of those who do have it, and try to educate themselves about the issues in question so that they don't sound or act like total morons. I expect leaders to be basically ethical, moral people who won't make a laughingstock of their offices, abuse their power, or mistreat subordinates.
Ron Paul 2012. Not spam, had to be said.
Only thing I'd accept from any of them is the usual. $10,000 in small denomination, used, unmarked bills.
Well, JFK had his numerous affairs, yet it didn't really hamper his job performance (in more ways than one I'm sure). And I'm positive that if you dig deep enough into anyone's history you will find enough dirt to cause a scandal. We expect these politicians to be liars and cheats, and yet we trust them enough to be shocked about moral indiscretions. I don't think we should be so concerned about their personal lives, and we should be focusing on what they can bring to America's political table. As for the Herman Cain issue, I think these women are very loosely interpreting the whole "sexual harassment" deal, and they are making a big deal out of whatever Cain said that made them "uncomfortable." The old guy behind the counter at KFC yesterday called me "little girl." Does that mean he's a closet pedophile? No, it probably means he is a socially awkward old man. Am I going to make a fuss about it? No, because dealing with lecherous men is simply something all girls have to learn to deal with. Does that mean Herman Cain was out of line with those women? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps his boundaries are more open than others, he could be one of those touchy people or something. I think they are trying to make this a bigger deal than it is.