Does the past of a politician matter? If so, how much? Or how long?

Sitting here catching up on some podcasts of my local radio station, I came across a segment, where the host is discussing Charlie Wilson's history of domestic violence in which he admitted to. For the record, he was retained, not arrested.
I'm sort of in agreeance with the host in wondering how far back is relevant?

So how much relevance should be given to a politicians's past? Does it help if said person(s) discuss it or make a statement?

Admittedly, I can no longer stomach Charlie Wilson, but I'm trying to be objective here. We hear so much about politicians that cheat, steal, lie and are even involved with deaths of others. But, very rarely do we hear about politicians with a past of domestic violence. I think this could be a very interesting discussion!

Links: I'm having a hard time finding any articles from left-leaning sites.

Update on Wife Beater Charlie Wilson (D-OH)

LGF Pages - Divorce Complaint of Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Ohio, Exposes His Past Domestic Violence Record

Charles’ anger arose at his wife’s daring to oppose his demands. He jumped out of his chair and grabbed her about the neck as he slammed her into the refrigerator. He then grabbed her about both arms, shaking her as they both went over to the kitchen counter, which Mrs. Wilson struck with enough force to take the breath out of her. She then fell to the floor, hitting the bottom door to the sink. As she laid there stunned, she couldn’t move her head or pick up her arm.
Charles admits to grabbing Plaintiff by the arms and shaking her (Defendant's Deposition, pp. 194, 207, 208-209). He admits grabbing her around the neck with one hand (Defendant's Deposition, pp. 209-210). He admits bruising plaintiffs’ arms and neck(Defendant's Deposition, pp. 194).

Actual report featured on Breitbart:

Charlie Wilson

Podcast link:

WWVA-AM Player


Discuss!

wife’s daring to oppose his demands

'Nuff said.


Seriously though...I think the bar has already been set pretty low for what "past transgressions" would DQ someone from holding office...short of capping someone or banging sheep.

CenterBHSFan;533075 wrote:Does the past of a politician matter? If so, how much? Or how long?

I can see both sides. I think everybody makes mistakes. As long as they admit it and learn from those mistakes I can forgive them. But I also think past actions are a good indicator of how someone will act in the future, so I can also understand not forgiving them.

I think you have to look at the action....is it a temporary, one time transgression (i.e. one DUI, smoked pot in college...not since, practiced witchcraft in high school, etc) or is it part of the person's fabric (i.e. habitual alcoholic, bigot, multiple abuse charges,multiple affairs etc).

I can look past those that are 'temporary'....like Bill Clinton smoking pot in college (who didn't??). What you really have to examine, IMO are things that are a part of who the person is.....like BHO attending Rev. Wright's Church for 20 years.

If the past includes inane collegiate transgressions from 25 years ago, like praying to Aqua Buddha, and it helps the Democratic candidate paint the offender as a wacko, nutjob, extremeist, tea-bagger, then it's legit.

If the past includes dating a guy 15 years ago that is into witchcraft and it helps the Democratic candidate paint the offender as a witch, wacko, nutjob, extremeist, tea-bagger, then it's legit.

If the past includes being a KKK recruiter for 3 years and a member for 5 years, and you are a Democratic Senator from West Virginia for 51 years, then it's wayyyy off base. Taboo city. Shhhhhhh.....quiet about that one.

If you were for Jim Crow laws 60 years ago, yet voted for civil rights legislation, and you're a redneck, Southern, racist, bigot, homophobe Republican from South Carolina, then it's fair game even after your death.

If you can't produce a valid college transcript and run for President as a Democrat, then no questions are allowed. Stay away from that one.

However, if you are from Texas and running for President and explain your entire life in college as it relates to the military, then it is perfectly legitimate for a member of the media to fabricate stories and evidence against you if you are a Republican.

If you drive your car into a body of water, survive, yet kill your mistress in the process, and your name is Kennedy, then all is forgiven forever. Who needs an investigation anyways?

If you worked on Wall Street..at any time for any reason...then your entire work history is subject to review and publication, especially if you are a tea-bagging neanderthal Republican running for governor.

See the pattern?

BGFalcons82;533242 wrote:If the past includes inane collegiate transgressions from 25 years ago, like praying to Aqua Buddha, and it helps the Democratic candidate paint the offender as a wacko, nutjob, extremeist, tea-bagger, then it's legit.

If the past includes dating a guy 15 years ago that is into witchcraft and it helps the Democratic candidate paint the offender as a witch, wacko, nutjob, extremeist, tea-bagger, then it's legit.

If the past includes being a KKK recruiter for 3 years and a member for 5 years, and you are a Democratic Senator from West Virginia for 51 years, then it's wayyyy off base. Taboo city. Shhhhhhh.....quiet about that one.

If you were for Jim Crow laws 60 years ago, yet voted for civil rights legislation, and you're a redneck, Southern, racist, bigot, homophobe Republican from South Carolina, then it's fair game even after your death.

If you can't produce a valid college transcript and run for President as a Democrat, then no questions are allowed. Stay away from that one.

However, if you are from Texas and running for President and explain your entire life in college as it relates to the military, then it is perfectly legitimate for a member of the media to fabricate stories and evidence against you if you are a Republican.

If you drive your car into a body of water, survive, yet kill your mistress in the process, and your name is Kennedy, then all is forgiven forever. Who needs an investigation anyways?

If you worked on Wall Street..at any time for any reason...then your entire work history is subject to review and publication, especially if you are a tea-bagging neanderthal Republican running for governor.

See the pattern?

Yep your delusional and have never been wrong in your life! You forgot Nixon's Watergate and Clinton's Jizz gate two of the biggest ones. I have no idea what your point is. I guess is who's favorite politician is less of a bad guy?

Bigdogg;533510 wrote:I have no idea what your point is. I guess is who's favorite politician is less of a bad guy?

I might be wrong, but I think his response was to my statement that I couldn't find any left-leaning sites with this.

I would say on the low end... One can be caught in the act and on film smoking crack and still get elected.... so I guess one's past does not matter a whole heck of a lot to answer the question... Laugh out loud and cry out loud simultaneously...

CenterBHSFan;533609 wrote:I might be wrong, but I think his response was to my statement that I couldn't find any left-leaning sites with this.

The question you asked on the thread is "Does the past of a politician matter?" My point is that if you are a conservative or Tea Party-backed candidate, then it most definitely is in play. If you are a liberal/statist, then not so much, if at all.

The fact that Jack Conway is approving ads questioning Paul's religion and then following up with even more hatred, is reprehensible. Look how the press protected BHO when Rev Wright got brought into question. The only ones going after Rev Wright were conservative talk-show hosts while the MSM stayed far far away from the stench.

I will give some to dogg on the Clinton womanizing item as the press did kick the tires on that issue prior to 1992, but they didn't do any real excavating as Hillary was perfectly content to look the other way as long as Slick Willie got to be POTUS. If Hillary could look the other way...so could they and it was a half-hearted attempt. However, when Hillary turned $10,000 into $100,000 on freaking cattle futures, then the press ran and hid like good little soldiers. Pathetic.

Hey Barack Hussein Obama....how bout we take a gander at the college transcript you got? What are YOU afraid of, eh?

BG does a nice ob of pointing out the fact that a politician's past personal life is subject to scrutiny mostly if you happen to be a conservative Republican. Past transgressions tend to be covered up, ignored, and swept under the carpet if you are a liberal Democrat.

believer;533783 wrote:BG does a nice ob of pointing out the fact that a politician's past personal life is subject to scrutiny mostly if you happen to be a conservative Republican. Past transgressions tend to be covered up, ignored, and swept under the carpet if you are a liberal Democrat.

T.Y., believer.

believer;533783 wrote:BG does a nice ob of pointing out the fact that a politician's past personal life is subject to scrutiny mostly if you happen to be a conservative Republican. Past transgressions tend to be covered up, ignored, and swept under the carpet if you are a liberal Democrat.

Bullshit....take a look at the 2008 election. That is the perfect example of that arguement being bullshit

It depends.

If it matters on the policy end, or is a huge character change, then it may matter. But, if the person explains the change or history in a rational and thoughtful way, then it doesn't matter to me.
Honestly, a person's is the last thing I look at.

For example, W's drunken history did not matter to me at all.

ptown_trojans_1;534137 wrote:For example, W's drunken history did not matter to me at all.

Apparently "W's" past alcoholism, his prior military service, and even Laura's unfortunate car accident when she was a teenager were fair game in to "mainstream" media when he was up for re-election.

In all fairness some on the right obsessed with Obama's birthright prior to his election. I just wish the "mainstream" media had done a little more digging into the facts on these areas rather than blatantly assisting the DNC in getting Obama elected...but I digress.

believer;533783 wrote:BG does a nice ob of pointing out the fact that a politician's past personal life is subject to scrutiny mostly if you happen to be a conservative Republican. Past transgressions tend to be covered up, ignored, and swept under the carpet if you are a liberal Democrat.

So bullshit...President Obama wouldn't be president today if the liberal democrat he ran for state senator against wouldn't have been privy to wanting to watch his wife get fucked by strange men at sex clubs....Eliot Spitzer wouldn't have been talking about him banging hookers...etc.

Well, it speaks to integrity and morals, and it's fair to use those as proxies for how someone might govern justly. But when you look at the corruption and porkulus going on in Washington it begs the question if "past performance is not an indicator of future returns".

To me, at the end of the day people's personal battles/transgressions says nothing about their ability to make good rational and objective decisions. I care mostly about the economy and foreign policy, much of the rest is superfluous BS. I fail to see how if a guy cheated on his wife or had a few DUI's that he's somehow less capable of others in crafting good economic and foreign policy.

Perhaps if we didn't enable the media assasination of politicians, digging up the skeletons in the closet, maybe we'd get better candidates if they so many good ones didn't decide it wasn't worth the personal risk and humiliation. If irrelevant issues weren't put under the microscope I think we'd get better candidates. A person could be a great candidate, but why put themselves and their family through exposing their past history of womanizing and drug use which likely has no bearing on their ability to do the job?

gut;535867 wrote:A person could be a great candidate, but why put themselves and their family through exposing their past history of womanizing and drug use which likely has no bearing on their ability to do the job?

I think ethics should be taken into consideration when selecting any candidate.

I can't stand Charlie Wilson anymore. So, I can't speculate... truthfully... if his past would be relevant to my decision on whether to vote for him again. It doesn't even have to be Charlie Wilson, it could be anybody.

I'd like to think that I would vote for somebody based strictly on their competence and results, but I can't say that truthfully, either.

For me, it depends on what the story is. Somebody who has had or currently has a drinking problem I could probably put aside. Somebody with a past drug abuse issue, I could probably put aside.

Somebody who has been caught involved in bribes, theft, laundering, cover-ups.... not so much.
Somebody who has a factual history of wife-beating... not so much.
Somebody who has a history of child abuse... never.

There still has to be a certain "likeability" and integrity to a person's character that you're about to vote in to represent you in politics. I'm not saying that it is the first thing to look for, but it has to be there at some level.
Unfortunately, it's also for those same reasons that we get lifelong policians like Byrd and Rockefeller; who have been in office forever and a day, and have not kept their state in the current era, to use as an example.

So, what's the balance everybody is looking for when they go to vote?

FatHobbit;535927 wrote:I think ethics should be taken into consideration when selecting any candidate.

Is that because squeaky-clean politicians have such a stellar track record of ethical and non-partisan behavior?

Like I said, choices people have supposedly made now and in the past doesn't seem to be a very good proxy for how they'll act in a given situation. That a guy might cheat on his wife doesn't mean he'll act unethically in business, either.

Just saying that I don't think the personal background of a candidate is particularly relevant nor has it proven to be.

CenterBHSFan;535942 wrote: Somebody who has been caught involved in bribes, theft, laundering, cover-ups.... not so much.
Somebody who has a factual history of wife-beating... not so much.
Somebody who has a history of child abuse... never.

Agreed, but the problem is there's potential for a lot of gray area there. The press no longer does it's job and can't report "facts" without editorializing and sensationalizing, ignoring facts that don't support their view and taking things out of context to spin the perception they are trying to achieve. I mean, when you say "history" does a one-time mistake ignoring the other side to the story apply? Does an embattled marriage in which the wife may have used the police to maliciously hurt/damage her husband apply?

I have no problem taking ethics and integrity into consideration, I just think it's rare to truly know a candidate well-enough through the media to make those judgements.

BGFalcons82;533242 wrote:If the past includes inane collegiate transgressions from 25 years ago, like praying to Aqua Buddha, and it helps the Democratic candidate paint the offender as a wacko, nutjob, extremeist, tea-bagger, then it's legit.

If the past includes dating a guy 15 years ago that is into witchcraft and it helps the Democratic candidate paint the offender as a witch, wacko, nutjob, extremeist, tea-bagger, then it's legit.

If the past includes being a KKK recruiter for 3 years and a member for 5 years, and you are a Democratic Senator from West Virginia for 51 years, then it's wayyyy off base. Taboo city. Shhhhhhh.....quiet about that one.

If you were for Jim Crow laws 60 years ago, yet voted for civil rights legislation, and you're a redneck, Southern, racist, bigot, homophobe Republican from South Carolina, then it's fair game even after your death.

If you can't produce a valid college transcript and run for President as a Democrat, then no questions are allowed. Stay away from that one.

However, if you are from Texas and running for President and explain your entire life in college as it relates to the military, then it is perfectly legitimate for a member of the media to fabricate stories and evidence against you if you are a Republican.

If you drive your car into a body of water, survive, yet kill your mistress in the process, and your name is Kennedy, then all is forgiven forever. Who needs an investigation anyways?

If you worked on Wall Street..at any time for any reason...then your entire work history is subject to review and publication, especially if you are a tea-bagging neanderthal Republican running for governor.

See the pattern?

Yeah, because the conservatives never use shit like that to make a candidate look bad. Oh wait, the 2004 Presidential election happened. And pretty much every other election as well.

Or what about: You produce a valid and confirmed to be real birth certificate and your birth was published in a US newspaper but it's still perfectly reasonable for people to claim that you aren't a citizen or that your birth certificate is somehow fake and the newspaper article was an elaborate ploy when you were born to set up a presidential run.

I Wear Pants;536234 wrote:Yeah, because the conservatives never use shit like that to make a candidate look bad. Oh wait, the 2004 Presidential election happened. And pretty much every other election as well.

Or what about: You produce a valid and confirmed to be real birth certificate and your birth was published in a US newspaper but it's still perfectly reasonable for people to claim that you aren't a citizen or that your birth certificate is somehow fake and the newspaper article was an elaborate ploy when you were born to set up a presidential run.

2004? Are you referring to the swiftboat veterans refuting John Kerry? Is that a personal attack on his religion? Is that a personal attack on his wife or children? Is that a personal attack on his arrest record? Nope...John Kerry ran on his service (he'll tell you anytime you ask him) and it became fair game for scrutiny. He was his own worst enemy and got trapped in lies he created.

Obama produced a "certificate of live birth", not a birth certificate. BIG difference. I can go to the 5 & dime and get a certificate that says I'm from Ohio. I can even scan it and put it on the internet. Per the thread title, the media never dug into it any further once this "document" was distributed. If Nixon had said he had nothing to do with Watergate on the first day, would Woodward and Bernstein said, "OK...whatever you say."??? Personally, I'm not a birther, as he won the election fair and square. I'm more interested in his beliefs and what he learned from his marxist father than I am where he was born. Trivia question....who was the first birther? Hint...she's married to an ex-POTUS.

gut;536213 wrote:Is that because squeaky-clean politicians have such a stellar track record of ethical and non-partisan behavior?

Like I said, choices people have supposedly made now and in the past doesn't seem to be a very good proxy for how they'll act in a given situation. That a guy might cheat on his wife doesn't mean he'll act unethically in business, either.

Just saying that I don't think the personal background of a candidate is particularly relevant nor has it proven to be.

If I have a choice between electing/doing business with someone who has acted unethically in the past or someone who has acted ethically I'll always pick the ethical person. (If everything else is even.) If someone is willing to cheat at one thing, what makes you think they won't cheat at another?

I say we take em all golfing.... we will find out a great deal about what type of person they are, and what type of politician they would become.

I like to see and hear their stance on Marriage between a woman and a man, the sanctity of marriage..............




And how many times they have been divorced.