CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

the wonderboy — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:53:24 -0000

And thanks for the congrats krezler

Re: Question of the day

the wonderboy — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:31:14 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

young nasty man — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:06:46 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

The Conservative — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:39:37 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Larry Stevens — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:07:30 -0000

I the fair question to ask is the perennial, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Re: Question of the day

cermak_rd — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:45:18 -0000

and Bill never went around talking about other people's sin and the "sanctity of marriage".

Re: Question of the day

Yellow Dog Democrat — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:58:06 -0000

....impeachable offense.

Re: Question of the day

Yellow Dog Democrat — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:57:33 -0000

Um, Colonel, hate to point out the obvious, but we never said "Character doesn't matter."

We just said adultery wasn't an

Re: Question of the day

Levois — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:38:25 -0000

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

Re: Question of the day

triplemstrategies — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:22:28 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

B Hicks — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:00:16 -0000

Politicians should be prepared to answer any and all questions. If you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have anything to hide, who cares? A divorce question is completely appropriate. It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter much to me, but to some Illinois voters itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.

Re: Question of the day

The Colonel — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:35:46 -0000

Gee, what happened to the left's old refrain during the glorious 'Clinton Years': "Character doesn't matter"?

Re: Question of the day

cermak_rd — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:35:13 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Coloradem — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:24:30 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Anon — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:12:40 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Goodbye Napoleon — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:05:23 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Thomas Jefferson — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:13:10 -0000

I think it's fair game to ask any candidate anything. You put yourself out there in the public sphere, you become public property.

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:29:26 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:26:30 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Beowulf — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:25:42 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

the Patriot — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:17:00 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Yellow Dog Democrat — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:08:15 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

babs — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:07:56 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:28:37 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

lairdude — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:56:42 -0000

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.