Why does it even matter? Whether or not a person is divorced has nothing to do with their ability to lead as governor. Any discussion of a candidate's divorce is a personal attack and definitive of one of the largest problems with politics today--rhetoric and image replace policy and issues.
Tessa
· 3 years ago
It truly shouldn't matter if a person is divorced or not. Whether one is divorced shouldn't affect their ability to decide about the amending of the Constitution for gays and lesbians being able to marry. Apples and oranges.
As far as answering questions about their own divorce, that should be their own business, but look what happened in '04. Things come back to bite people in the butt when they don't answer. People (newspeople) go digging and find the answer out themselves. It's better to be out front with some info than let others dig for more than they need to know. Sad, sad world that we live in. The general public likes dirt than what is pertinent to what it takes to run government.
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
It is fair to ask a candidate just about anything. It is better to ask candidates about things that most directly effect our lives than to ask them about concocted wedge issues.
In the last presidential election many candidates were more willing to talk about protecting us from gay marriage, than they were willing to talk about a pending overseas war.
I am tempted to blame Karl Rove, who was rather open about that strategy. But ultimately the voters fell for it. So shame on all of us.
We can choose to make the upcoming elections about that sort of stuff. But hopefully we will choose to make it about many more important issues.
Slash
· 3 years ago
Since only good came from dragging the divorce skeletons out of Jack Ryan's closet (resulting in Alan Keyes, and the coronation of Obama I) I am all for picking through divorce details.
Look at all the fun we would have missed if the press had kept all that stuff off limits.
Harvey Birdman
· 3 years ago
I think we leave it up to the candidate or public official, in the sense that, if you raise ethical or moral arguments about an issue, that opens the door to examining the official's own moral compass. Divorces happen, people fall out of love, that's sad and should be private... but a divorce that comes out of a person being unfaithful, or a batterer or something like that - that speaks to the character of the person, and that dimension of a personality DOES have something to do with their qualification to lead.
Krezler
· 3 years ago
Wow, right off the bat wonderboy misses the whole point...congrats!
Cassandra
· 3 years ago
I think we need to know about domestic violence complaints including spousal and child abuse and similar behaviors that could reasonably affect assessment of a candidate's character, but 50% of American marriages end in divorce. The divorce issue is meaningless in the 21st century.
The GOP's overreaction to the Jack Ryan matter, which involved the candidate and his then wife, has cost them very dearly in Illinois, although Ryan was unlikely to have beaten Obama so perhaps was less time and money for him in the end. But he certainly could have given, say, Blago or Dick Durbin a run, he was smart, rich, and willing to work like a demon to win. Compared with the wimpy campaigns of JBT, Gidwitz et al Republicans, he could have mounted a real challenge to either.
Bill Baar
· 3 years ago
They're all fair questions. The person asking needs to be more careful then the person responding though. They have the greater risk of looking a fool.
Ben
· 3 years ago
Shades of Bill Scott, a former Attorney General whose wife disclosed a Walter Mitty lifestyle. Can reporters ask, sure. Does a voter really care. Unlikely. I don't see any connection between a failed marriage and a gay or lesbian issue.
First Time Poster, Long Time R
· 3 years ago
If a candidate wants to protect gay people from ruining the sacred institution of marriage, then I would also ask them what they think of Britney Spears from getting a 24-hour marriage in Vegas just for publicity.
How come she can get married just to get her picture on the cover of People Magazine, but two people who love each other and are committed to spending their entire lives together can't?
zatoichi
· 3 years ago
If you are going to use ethics and virtue as the basis for a political stand, your own house better be up to the standard you want others to follow and be consistent. Trouble is there are lots of skeletons floating in many closets and most people have done something that another groups finds unacceptable. It is easy to jump on the moral soap opera bandwagon such as gay marriage, but do not talk about my multiple affairs, drug use, or gambling. How many Jim Bakkers are out there talking morals/decency and living a different life? If the divorce rate is at 50% then (parapharsing Kinky Freidman) why can't gays have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us if they want to marry?
Has there been any serious research on a person's ability to be a successful leader and how they run their personal life? FDR and JFK are usually viewed as pretty good presidents but looking at their personal lives would give current Bill O'Reilly types plenty to complain about. The issues should be focus on their work making my life better and helping our community. Then again, the gossip crap is more fun and easy.
CBM
· 3 years ago
I say ask all of the questions especially if the candidate trots out the old "sanctity of marriage" line.
Future Mrs. Larry King
· 3 years ago
I guess I read Rich's post differently than most people who have responded so far--i.e., not really a question about gay marriage or about a candidate's personal life. I saw it as a post about questioning candidates who oppose same-sex marriages because they want "to protect the sanctity of marriage." If someone uses that line/argument, can a reporter subsequently ask about the candidate's position on divorce? I think so, and whether or not the candidate is divorced can be left out of it.
Consistency and honesty are admirable traits, generally speaking, and such a question allows a reporter to dig a little farther into a candidate's reasons for opposing same-sex marriages and what s/he means by "sanctity of marriage" -- and it tells us something about his/her reasoning process.
Bluefish
· 3 years ago
If a politician wants to insert himself in someone else's bedroom, then he/she better be willing to open theirs up to the world.
lairdude
· 3 years ago
In the case of this issue where the possibility of same sex marriage is an affront to heterosexual marriage and may be the ruin of socitey, I think it is a fair issue. I think divorce ruins more lives than a man marrying a long term partner that also happens to be a man. I truly see no long term negative in a happy same sex marriage to a heterosexual marriage. Just ask Massachusetts residents who have one of the lowest divorce rates and recently gave up on an anti-gay marriage amendment when it was shown to be pointless.
VanillaMan
· 3 years ago
There is a knee-jerk reaction both pro and con on this issue, and we need to really go beyond what is fashionable or what is traditional and look at the facts.
There is no reason to treat anyone disparingly based on whom they love. It is dishonest to label someone opposed to gay marriage as anti-gay, and that seems to be the first line of defense pro-marriage folks want to throw at the opposition. They have used the "civil rights" argument, and now some are using the divorce argument, demand that anti-gay marriage folks be "pure". I love it when one side demand purity from the other, knowing there is no such thing.
On the other side, traditionalist want to bring up Biblical Old Testament verses and talk to you as though it is suddenly 1925. To the politically correct crowd, their words fall on deaf ears, regardless of their concerns.
Lets go beyond these slow-witted arguments. Lets look at science.
Fact one: Mother Nature rewards whatever continues the gene pool. Societies without children are doomed. Pro-create or die out. Societies that do not care for the health, safety, security, education and welfare of it's next generation are heading for a dead end.
Gay marriage is unsustainable. It is unsustainable biologically and socially. We already tried it, and it flopped. History has shown us that societies that have tried other forms of marriage have discovered that heterosexual monogamous marriage is the best for sustaining and maintaining societies, keeping the growing, building, and keeping them strong. Keeping a strong societal base has gotten us where we are today. It is not merely coincidental. It is proven. It works. Mother Nature doesn't care about what is politically correct or fashionable. When the rubber hits the road, you are either on-board or you are left behind. Gay marriage is a dead end.
Fact two: Societies that reconsider monogamous heterosexual marriages open Pandora's Box. Justifications that have approved gay marriage in the Netherlands and Canada, also justify polygamous, bisexual and polyamourous marriages. Last year, after only three years since legalizing gay marriage, the Netherlands legalized it's first polygamous marriage. The trio's neighbors publically claim that they see nothing wrong with this. Last week, the Canadian Board of Justice issued a report that also supports polygamous marriages. My favorite statement was from a Liberal Party representative, "We are a progressive country, why should be discriminate against these families and make them feel bad?"
If our societal standards are so flimsy that we refuse to say anything is wrong, we fall into a logistical trap where everything becomes right, even when it obviously isn't.
Thats where the disingenuous argument about being anti-divorce is a requirement if one is also anti-gay marriage. This is genuinely silly for a couple obvious reasons. Pro-gay marriage supporters cannot demand that their logic supersede everyone else's. Just as I don't think it is right to demand that pro-gay marriage supporters defend their side by using Biblical arguments, or proving that gay sex results in pregnancies, it is equally wrong to demand that the anti-gay marriage side prove their opposition to divorce.
Demanding viginity as a percusor to serious discussions is childishness we usually outgrow. If one side demands it, they must not have the facts on their side.
babs
· 3 years ago
VanillaMan, there is no shortage of children in this world that would make procreation a necessity. Your theory would also prohibit marriages to infertile humans and senior citizens. Maybe this is really an excuse for the older man/younger woman dynamic. Newt would be so proud.
Let's get off moral issues and debate how we make this a better country. We can talk about ethics reform forever but if the electorate is only supplied information on moral issues we'll never have an ethical government or campaign.
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 3 years ago
I think it's fair to ask a candidate backing the "Defense of Marriage Act" about their personal experiences with marriage, especially if that candidate is using their personal experience as a business leader to credential their ability to create jobs as Governor.
You can't have it both ways.
the Patriot
· 3 years ago
I think the candidates divorce needs to be expolored. First, fault is a terrible question in an already precarious situation when it comes to divorce. However, if someone could not be trusted by a spouse who they swore to honor before God and their closest friends, can we trust them as a politician.
Second, if a candidate claims to be a family man/woman, then his/her family is on the table. Without naming names, there is at least one candidate for governor calling himself a family man who is divorced and not remarried. I have disussed with many people, some who like this candidate, but all agree, a single divorced person is NOT a family man.
Beowulf
· 3 years ago
You bet. When you run for public office, the public should be free to ask any question of you that they deem is important to them. This does not mean the political candidate is required to answer those questions that he/she feel are not pertinent to the office. If the candidate feels like answering the question, he/she will. The days of being "politically correct" should be subrogated to the issue of the transparency of public office for the benefit of the it's citizens. Only in matters of national security should this transparency to the citizens be overruled.
steve schnorf
· 3 years ago
Generally the citizenry tolerates moral weaknesses truthfully acknowleged better than hypocrisy. So, decide how high on the pedestal you want to place yourself as a candidate and you can dictate the standard to which you deserve to be held.
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
I think it's a fair line of questioning, but that the candidate has the right to defer the question of his or her divorce as being a personal matter. The voters could make with that what they will.
Thomas Jefferson
· 3 years ago
I think it's fair game to ask any candidate anything. You put yourself out there in the public sphere, you become public property.
Goodbye Napoleon
· 3 years ago
It's totally obvious what they are doing here and it has been predictable from day one. Ultimately I think they wil fail and the more they try to paint her as "liberal" on the issue the more Blago voters she'll capture in the fall.
Sure its fair game, but in the end I don't think its good strategy for a Republican candidate in this state. The Ohio ballot issue was a great turnout tool, but this is different and I think personal attacks will turn sympathy towards the person being attacked her.
Anon
· 3 years ago
Thanks Rich for the day-brightener! VanillaMan's 10:28 post was the most amusing thing I've read in quite a while. His favorite song must be Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred." VanillaMan - move to Utah quick, they're eagerly awaiting your arrival! But seriously folks, the answer is of course "Yes" because any question which reveals the righteous ones' hypocrisy and illogical thinking is a good question.
Coloradem
· 3 years ago
Absolutely it should be asked of candidates who are attempting to claim a "moral high ground" on the subject of marriage.
The fact of the matter is, the biggest threat to marriage is, by definition, the dissolution of marriage, or divorce--not the wider availablity of marriage as an option.
These allegations of "personal attacks" are downright laughable. We are talking about candidates who are "personally attacking" an entire class of citizens. If they do not want to be attacked, they should not throw the first blow.
cermak_rd
· 3 years ago
Glass house, meet stones. I definitely think that if they are trotting out the old "sanctity of marriage" line that they ought to have a squeaky clean sexual history and personal life.
The Colonel
· 3 years ago
Gee, what happened to the left's old refrain during the glorious 'Clinton Years': "Character doesn't matter"?
B Hicks
· 3 years ago
Politicians should be prepared to answer any and all questions. If you don’t have anything to hide, who cares? A divorce question is completely appropriate. It doesn’t matter much to me, but to some Illinois voters it’s very important.
I remember in 2002 when a reporter asked then Gubernatorial candidate Rod Blagojevich, have you ever smoked pot, Rod? Rod paused, looked around, and was caught completely off guard. Something as silly as that became an issue.
If you want the big job, grow some thick skin and polish up your answers.
triplemstrategies
· 3 years ago
Someone can be divorced and still see the need to have government do what it can to protect and uphold the traditional family. This question is like asking if someone in MADD could never have been an alcholic or have driven drunk. Maybe someone who has been divorced sees the positive benifits more than anyone else.
Levois
· 3 years ago
Whether an individual is for or against homosexual marriage it should not cause anyone to go into the details of a divorce. I don't think that is anyone's business other than the parties involved. I don't think this should be brought up for any reason
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 3 years ago
Um, Colonel, hate to point out the obvious, but we never said "Character doesn't matter."
We just said adultery wasn't an
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 3 years ago
....impeachable offense.
cermak_rd
· 3 years ago
and Bill never went around talking about other people's sin and the "sanctity of marriage".
Larry Stevens
· 3 years ago
I the fair question to ask is the perennial, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
The Conservative
· 3 years ago
When a person enters the public arena we the people have the right to know as much as we can to determine our vote. This in not limited to the politics or business decisions. WE need to know the personal stuff as well because that determines character and that is important in making all sorts of decisions.
young nasty man
· 3 years ago
krezler ... at least wonderboy's comment was regarding the post and not just an attack on another commenter ... and i'm not sure he actually missed the point (which you are so apt to point out and yet you fail to comment "on point").
I think the point is that we're talking about the sanctity of marriage, at least to some degree. And sure, divorce and homosexuality are related to some degree in that they both call into question the sanctity of marriage. And some would argue that a candidate's sexual preference or marital status have little if anything to do with their ability to govern and carry out the responsibilities of their job.
And if certain issues have little to do with the job, then while they can be asked, they probably shouldn't.
And wonderboy is right ... this whole issue does to some degree speak of one of the major issues in politics right now ... that what a candidate looks like and "acts" like is often more important that how they would govern, their stance on issues, and their policy.
Sure, a candidate's behavior and choices can reflect on their ability, but those issues should not become THE issues in a campaign.
I'm sure my comment has not been completely on topic either ... and probably could be spoken better by another ... so I plead for you your grace and mercy.
the wonderboy
· 3 years ago
The real issue that I have here is that I don't think anyone has a position in support of divorce. Yes the public should know about the character of an individual and I understand concerns regarding abuse, infidelity, etc., but that has little to do with probing into the divorce. I am not an Oberweis supporter at all, but all I need to know is that he was divorced and the reasons were not scandalous (such as possibilities mentioned above). Besides, as others have pointed out, perhaps the people with better insight into the need to strengthen marriages and families are those who have gone through the worst situations.
All Comments
As far as answering questions about their own divorce, that should be their own business, but look what happened in '04. Things come back to bite people in the butt when they don't answer. People (newspeople) go digging and find the answer out themselves. It's better to be out front with some info than let others dig for more than they need to know. Sad, sad world that we live in. The general public likes dirt than what is pertinent to what it takes to run government.
In the last presidential election many candidates were more willing to talk about protecting us from gay marriage, than they were willing to talk about a pending overseas war.
I am tempted to blame Karl Rove, who was rather open about that strategy. But ultimately the voters fell for it. So shame on all of us.
We can choose to make the upcoming elections about that sort of stuff. But hopefully we will choose to make it about many more important issues.
Look at all the fun we would have missed if the press had kept all that stuff off limits.
but 50% of American marriages end in divorce. The divorce issue is meaningless in the 21st century.
The GOP's overreaction to the Jack Ryan matter, which involved the candidate and his then wife,
has cost them very dearly in Illinois, although Ryan was unlikely to have beaten Obama so perhaps was less time and money for him in the end. But he certainly could have given, say, Blago or Dick Durbin a run, he was smart, rich,
and willing to work like a demon to win. Compared with the wimpy campaigns of JBT, Gidwitz et al Republicans, he could have mounted a real challenge to either.
Can reporters ask, sure. Does a voter really care. Unlikely. I don't see any connection between a failed marriage and a gay or lesbian issue.
How come she can get married just to get her picture on the cover of People Magazine, but two people who love each other and are committed to spending their entire lives together can't?
Has there been any serious research on a person's ability to be a successful leader and how they run their personal life? FDR and JFK are usually viewed as pretty good presidents but looking at their personal lives would give current Bill O'Reilly types plenty to complain about. The issues should be focus on their work making my life better and helping our community. Then again, the gossip crap is more fun and easy.
Consistency and honesty are admirable traits, generally speaking, and such a question allows a reporter to dig a little farther into a candidate's reasons for opposing same-sex marriages and what s/he means by "sanctity of marriage" -- and it tells us something about his/her reasoning process.
There is no reason to treat anyone disparingly based on whom they love. It is dishonest to label someone opposed to gay marriage as anti-gay, and that seems to be the first line of defense pro-marriage folks want to throw at the opposition. They have used the "civil rights" argument, and now some are using the divorce argument, demand that anti-gay marriage folks be "pure". I love it when one side demand purity from the other, knowing there is no such thing.
On the other side, traditionalist want to bring up Biblical Old Testament verses and talk to you as though it is suddenly 1925. To the politically correct crowd, their words fall on deaf ears, regardless of their concerns.
Lets go beyond these slow-witted arguments. Lets look at science.
Fact one: Mother Nature rewards whatever continues the gene pool. Societies without children are doomed. Pro-create or die out. Societies that do not care for the health, safety, security, education and welfare of it's next generation are heading for a dead end.
Gay marriage is unsustainable. It is unsustainable biologically and socially. We already tried it, and it flopped. History has shown us that societies that have tried other forms of marriage have discovered that heterosexual monogamous marriage is the best for sustaining and maintaining societies, keeping the growing, building, and keeping them strong. Keeping a strong societal base has gotten us where we are today. It is not merely coincidental. It is proven. It works. Mother Nature doesn't care about what is politically correct or fashionable. When the rubber hits the road, you are either on-board or you are left behind. Gay marriage is a dead end.
Fact two: Societies that reconsider monogamous heterosexual marriages open Pandora's Box. Justifications that have approved gay marriage in the Netherlands and Canada, also justify polygamous, bisexual and polyamourous marriages. Last year, after only three years since legalizing gay marriage, the Netherlands legalized it's first polygamous marriage. The trio's neighbors publically claim that they see nothing wrong with this. Last week, the Canadian Board of Justice issued a report that also supports polygamous marriages. My favorite statement was from a Liberal Party representative, "We are a progressive country, why should be discriminate against these families and make them feel bad?"
If our societal standards are so flimsy that we refuse to say anything is wrong, we fall into a logistical trap where everything becomes right, even when it obviously isn't.
Thats where the disingenuous argument about being anti-divorce is a requirement if one is also anti-gay marriage. This is genuinely silly for a couple obvious reasons. Pro-gay marriage supporters cannot demand that their logic supersede everyone else's. Just as I don't think it is right to demand that pro-gay marriage supporters defend their side by using Biblical arguments, or proving that gay sex results in pregnancies, it is equally wrong to demand that the anti-gay marriage side prove their opposition to divorce.
Demanding viginity as a percusor to serious discussions is childishness we usually outgrow. If one side demands it, they must not have the facts on their side.
Let's get off moral issues and debate how we make this a better country. We can talk about ethics reform forever but if the electorate is only supplied information on moral issues we'll never have an ethical government or campaign.
You can't have it both ways.
Second, if a candidate claims to be a family man/woman, then his/her family is on the table. Without naming names, there is at least one candidate for governor calling himself a family man who is divorced and not remarried. I have disussed with many people, some who like this candidate, but all agree, a single divorced person is NOT a family man.
Sure its fair game, but in the end I don't think its good strategy for a Republican candidate in this state. The Ohio ballot issue was a great turnout tool, but this is different and I think personal attacks will turn sympathy towards the person being attacked her.
The fact of the matter is, the biggest threat to marriage is, by definition, the dissolution of marriage, or divorce--not the wider availablity of marriage as an option.
These allegations of "personal attacks" are downright laughable. We are talking about candidates who are "personally attacking" an entire class of citizens. If they do not want to be attacked, they should not throw the first blow.
I remember in 2002 when a reporter asked then Gubernatorial candidate Rod Blagojevich, have you ever smoked pot, Rod? Rod paused, looked around, and was caught completely off guard. Something as silly as that became an issue.
If you want the big job, grow some thick skin and polish up your answers.
We just said adultery wasn't an
I think the point is that we're talking about the sanctity of marriage, at least to some degree. And sure, divorce and homosexuality are related to some degree in that they both call into question the sanctity of marriage. And some would argue that a candidate's sexual preference or marital status have little if anything to do with their ability to govern and carry out the responsibilities of their job.
And if certain issues have little to do with the job, then while they can be asked, they probably shouldn't.
And wonderboy is right ... this whole issue does to some degree speak of one of the major issues in politics right now ... that what a candidate looks like and "acts" like is often more important that how they would govern, their stance on issues, and their policy.
Sure, a candidate's behavior and choices can reflect on their ability, but those issues should not become THE issues in a campaign.
I'm sure my comment has not been completely on topic either ... and probably could be spoken better by another ... so I plead for you your grace and mercy.