Who is the most likely 2012 Republican Nominee?

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I'm with Agentman on this one. If a person can be tempted to forsake one of our most important vows, I'm not going to trust them to take a vow of office.

 

[bhsup]

Bear in mind, I am talking about a high office here. McCain might make a great county animal control officer and if he ran for that and had the qualifications, I might for for him for that. But President, Governor, Senator, etc? Heck no. Too much on the line.

 

[NickyJ]

But just like I refused to vote for McCain because his adultery made him unworthy for the highest office in the land/most powerful position in the world...

Adultery? What adultery?

 

[bhsup]

McCain underwent treatment for his injuries, including months of grueling physical therapy,[58] and attended the National War College at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. during 1973–1974.[59] Having been rehabilitated, by late 1974, McCain had his flight status reinstated, and in 1976 he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida.[57][60] He improved the unit's flight readiness and safety records,[61] and won the squadron its first-ever Meritorious Unit Commendation.[60] During this period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, and the McCains' marriage began to falter, for which he later would accept blame.[62][63]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M...r.2C_liaison_to_Senate.2C_and_second_marriage

 

[holy king]

Just for the record, I am not angry at McCain or Clinton. That's for their spouses if they want to be angry at them. I just won't vote for them. And yeah, I'd view the same for a civil union. Same thing, different name. They make a pact, they should stick to if. If you want to divorce, keep your flipping pants zipped until the divorce is done. Otherwise, don't expect my vote for President.

i can see that opion making sense for the whole swearing before god to always stay together ceremonies.

but for simple civil unions (or marriages that dont involve such ceremonies)?

those are contracts that can be cancelled and there's legal procedures for that.

edit: nevermind, it's the adultery you have problems with...

 

[downtown]

Adultery? What adultery?

Yeah, the whole specifics behind the thing are almost John Edwards level skeezy.

 

[Arakhor]

A cynical person might suggest that it's not better known because he's a Republican.

 

[bhsup]

Eh, honestly probably less known because it was 35 years ago AND happened before he went into politics. As opposed to Edwards' situation where it happened in front of the American people via tabloids and whatnot.

 

[Arakhor]

The uncaring mobs do like to see their idols torn down in front of them. It's one of the more distressing aspects of society.

 

[MobBoss]

@VRWCAgent. Do you think McCain the same man he was 35 years ago? At what point does forgiveness enter into your equation as regards who's qualified for office and who isnt?

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, the whole specifics behind the thing are almost John Edwards level skeezy.

Even Newt Gingrich level sleezy.

 

[downtown]

Eh, honestly probably less known because it was 35 years ago AND happened before he went into politics. As opposed to Edwards' situation where it happened in front of the American people via tabloids and whatnot.

Yeah, I think that is probably fair. It *was* a long time ago. McCain also enjoyed a very favorable relationship with the press (until maybe a year ago), so I'm sure that helped.

 

[bhsup]

@VRWCAgent. Do you think McCain the same man he was 35 years ago? At what point does forgiveness enter into your equation as regards who's qualified for office and who isnt?

It really has nothing to do with forgiveness. It's not my place to forgive or not. That's between him, his first wife, his family, and God. It has to do with trust with the highest office in the land. He's shown himself incapable of being true to vows.

 

[MobBoss]

It really has nothing to do with forgiveness. It's not my place to forgive or not.

Uhm. Its not your place to judge his soul. Thats not what I am talking about. I'm talking about how long before you recognize that someone has admitted their mistake and tried to improve their life?

You may not sit in judgement over McCains soul, but you are certainly judging the man over his actions over 35 years gone by. How long before you recognize that the man who did those things that long ago, isnt exactly the same man today? The point being we are all asked to forgive those that deserve it, even if we arent necessarily the one directly affected. Hasnt McCain, by his words and actions since, proven that he is worthy of that forgiveness, and restablishment of trust?

That's between him, his first wife, his family, and God. It has to do with trust with the highest office in the land. He's shown himself incapable of being true to vows.

And yet he has kept his vows to his current wife, and his vows to his nation quite well. I find your inability to balance his words and deeds since that event so long ago kinda troubling to be honest, as no one is perfect and we all make mistakes. Often its how you conduct yourself after you make that mistake that is what really matters. In essence, your stance here gives no redeeming value to anyone for their actions after their big mistake. Do you really think thats biblical or even fair?

 

[NickyJ]

Eh, honestly probably less known because it was 35 years ago AND happened before he went into politics. As opposed to Edwards' situation where it happened in front of the American people via tabloids and whatnot.

Correct. Also, I really didn't know about it. I went to Wikipedia's page on McCain and there wasn't even the mention of the word "adultery".

@VRWCAgent. Do you think McCain the same man he was 35 years ago? At what point does forgiveness enter into your equation as regards who's qualified for office and who isnt?

Agreed. I think I can let him off the hook for something three decades ago. He hasn't shown the same behavior since, so I'll let it slip. If it happened recently, I wouldn't be so forgiving.

 

[bhsup]

As I've said before, it's for high office that I have a problem with this and refuse to support him at. I am just not willing to risk voting for someone with that past for such high office. Surely out of 300 million some people, we have some candidates who have never had this issue, yes?

 

[SuperJay]

I went to Wikipedia's page on McCain and there wasn't even the mention of the word "adultery".

"Extramarital affair" is a synonym for "adultery" in this particular case. "Adultery" is just the legal term for the crime itself.

 

[JollyRoger]

Bear in mind, I am talking about a high office here. McCain might make a great county animal control officer and if he ran for that and had the qualifications, I might for for him for that. But President, Governor, Senator, etc? Heck no. Too much on the line.

How can he control animals if he can't control himself?

@ others on the 3 decades forgiveness stuff - why the demand for O'Bama's kindergarten records? So what if he drew outside the lines once.

 

[MobBoss]

As I've said before, it's for high office that I have a problem with this and refuse to support him at. I am just not willing to risk voting for someone with that past for such high office. Surely out of 300 million some people, we have some candidates who have never had this issue, yes?

Risk? What risk? Seriously, we have had extremely effective Presidents in the past that havent been perfect when it comes to this sort of thing. So what 'risk' is there if he were to get into office?

"Extramarital affair" is a synonym for "adultery" in this particular case. "Adultery" is just the legal term for the crime itself.

Adultery biblically also covers having pre-maritial sex. Are we going to argue that your're not qualified to be president if you broke your word to God and had sex before marriage as well? I wonder how many candidates that would disqualify?

@Jolly. I've always said trying to pursue that stuff on Obama is just silly, so no argument there.

 

[NickyJ]

"Extramarital affair" is a synonym for "adultery" in this particular case. "Adultery" is just the legal term for the crime itself.

Still, I usually see "adultery" mentioned somewhere on the page if he committed adultery.

As I've said before, it's for high office that I have a problem with this and refuse to support him at. I am just not willing to risk voting for someone with that past for such high office. Surely out of 300 million some people, we have some candidates who have never had this issue, yes?

Still, it was over three decades ago. How long would it take for someone to finally be trusted after doing something bad? Is there no chance for him to begin a new life?