≡ Menu

The NYC Hillary Billies and Other Less Than Desireable Candidates

Bill Clinton, four years in the White House with nothing to do but entertain first ladies from around the globe.

When Mitt Romney articulated that idea in last week’s debate, I laughed. Then I got sick. It’s not just an ugly picture, it’s revolting.

Yea, I know, I know. Character doesn’t matter. Principles don’t matter. And private behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with public behavior. But I’d still really like to keep the lech out. Along with the unprincipled woman who blamed the “vast right-wing conspiracy” for the partially-clothed visitors to the oval office.

And how are we doing on the republican side of the aisle?

Can’t we possibly have a president who is intelligent, thoughtful, and well-spoken and who is not an adulterer? McCain and Guiliana both make me want to lose my lunch. If their wives can’t trust them, I certainly won’t.

Here’s to Romney. May he make history this year.

{ 12 comments… add one }

  • agardner January 27, 2008, 2:16 pm

    Thank you for bringing something up that has really been bothering me, Alison. It seems like so few of the candidates in this election cycle have any personal integrity. It’s really quite discouraging, and yet no one on the national stage seems to care. Really, there are only a few who seem to have any morals and I”m sure even they have some skeletons in their closets.

    On the Daily Herald page awhile ago, there were people arguing whether Guliani would be elected because he’s divorced (twice, right?). Divorce is not the issue! We’ve elected a divorced president before, and he was a good president. The issue with Guliani is that he was adulterous, in both marriages (and fairly recently). And although it’s not an elected office per se, I also have a really hard time putting a First Lady in the White House who was carrying on with a married man (or in Bill Clinton’s case…well, you know!).

    While I disagree with some of their politics, I do see some integrity in Obama and Edwards on the democratic side, and Paul and Huckabee on the republican side. Having said that, I put a Mitt Romney sign on my front lawn yesterday morning (much to the dismay of my Louisiana neighbors, lol!).

  • facethemusic January 27, 2008, 6:42 pm

    I haven’t heard about the adultery issue with McCain– is it something he admitted?

    Back before Huckabee joined the race, and Gingrich was still in– there was a funny but thought provoking thing going around the internet. I don’t remember who all the republican hopefuls were at the time, but the email showed pictures of them all, and made mention of the fact that critics were bringing up the polygamy issue in regards to Romney being LDS. But then it pointed out that of all the hopefuls at the time, all of them had either cheated on their wives, been married and divorced once or more times and had had “more than one wife”– all of them EXCEPT for Romney, who’d been faithfully married to ONE wife for ___ years.
    It certainly made the point.

  • davidson January 27, 2008, 11:20 pm

    I tiptoe into this discussion because I’m not well-informed enough to ask a decent question. My husband and I have talked extensively about Mitt. He agrees that he would probably be the best candidate, but he had some concerns about a little lack of integrity Mitt displayed when he was so instrumental in the Olympics held in Utah. I can’t remember exactly what he said, and he is asleep right now, so I can’t ask him–but does anyone know anything about that? Also, he said Mitt claims that he has been an avid hunter and fisher all his life; there is no record of his ever having a hunting or fishing license. Those are just pesky little flies, as far as I’m concerned, and there is probably a reasonable explanation, but I wondered if anyone knows details about those things. It won’t shake my opinion much; I still believe a person who worthily holds a temple recommend is by far the best candidate for a position like that.

  • jennycherie January 28, 2008, 5:03 am

    Posted By: davidsonAlso, he said Mitt claims that he has been an avid hunter and fisher all his life; there is no record of his ever having a hunting or fishing license.

    as wealthy as he is, I would assume he probably owns land where he can hunt and fish without a license.

  • jennycherie January 28, 2008, 5:06 am

    my husband also said that if you go hunting on a hunting preserve (like a place where you pay to hunt and they provide the land, a nice cabin and a guide) you also don’t need a license.

  • facethemusic January 28, 2008, 7:19 am

    His actual statement was, “I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life.” Later, he said he’d actually only gone hunting twice and that he “knocked quite a few birds”.

    “I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life” could be interpreted to mean “I’ve hunted frequently over the course of my life”.
    OR “I’ve always liked hunting”.

    I’m not sure which he meant. The comment was given to an NRA spokesperson, when they asked Mitt if he owned a gun and if he was a hunter.

    Now here’s the thing– he very well could have been being a little disingenious, trying to sound like he was an “avid hunter” since he was talking to an NRA guy. On the other hand– my own husband would tell you that he’s been a hutner pretty much all his life– but he’s hardly EVER gone. He always WANTS to go, but hardly ever has the time. He’s a hunter. He had the guns and the equipment and the desire– he just didnt’ have the time.
    I would imagine that as the big CEO kind of guy that Mitt is, and being so involved in that fast paced, business kind of world, having 5 sons, being actively involved in Church, being a Bishop, then Stake President,etc– the man probably just didn’t have time to go hunting. I think, like my husband, when he said “I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life”– he meant that he’s always had that desire- the mindset- the philosophy that hunting is okay, owning a gun is okay, etc, etc.
    I know people who’ve never voted, never even REGISTERED to vote, but claim they’re life long conservatives/Republicans- (some of them are members). I guess others could claim that they are lying or being disingenuous– “how can you say you’ve always been a conservative or Republican when you’ve never even registered to vote”? And they’d be making a valid point.
    But, when someone says they’re a life long Republican it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re claiming to have actually VOTED Republican/conservative. What they MEANT was that they’ve always held a conservative belief/philosophy. (They just need to get off their DUFFS and DO something about it!)
    Again, I don’t know if Mitt WAS purposely trying to deceive, or not. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was. Not because I think he’s dishonest overall– but just because he’s a politician, and that’s what most of them do to get votes and support. But still, he may have simply meant that he’s always supported hunting, the right to hunt, to bear arms, that he’s been hunting and has always liked hunting and supported the right to do so,etc.

  • agardner January 28, 2008, 7:44 am

    Davidson, with the Olympics, your dh might be thinking about all that happened BEFORE Mitt got there. There was some bribery involved to get the games, and they were having many financial and other struggles getting the games going when Mitt came on board. He cleaned all of that up really nicely, and the Olympics were awesome! For anyone who was able to go, there was such an air of excitement and energy. We didn’t go to any events (poor starving students) but we did just go hang out downtown and it was so much fun.

    The worst thing I heard about Mitt and the Olympics is that he had sworn at someone when they didn’t follow through with something they were supposed to do. But as far as any other controversry, I don’t Mitt was involved.

    In fact, I think what he did with the Olympics is one of the most persuasive arguments for him being president. He came in and cleaned up a mess and turned it into a very successful event. If only he can do the same thing for the country, that would be nice!

  • east-of-eden January 28, 2008, 8:25 am

    The hunting comment (IMO) is straining gnats at this point. If you discount Romney for one verbal gaff, or one curious quote, then you will have to discount everyone else in the race…they are all full of verbal gaffs, curious quotes, hot air and lies (for the most part).

    Look at what Romney does with businesses, he turns them around. Look at what he did with the Olympics, he turned them around. If a curse word slipped out, well it did, and he can and probably did repent — who hasn’t let a curse word slip? Look at the company Romney keeps, he has good, honorable friends and associates. You can’t say that for the other candidates. Look at Romney’s personal life, by far he is one of the best candidates in that area.

    People bash Romney for looking “too polished”, well he’s been the CEO of major business for 30 + years, he has to be, you can’t say “Oh, I didn’t mean that last line” to your share holders. Not to mention years of Church service also polish a man. Personally, I would like to see a politician not go back on his/her words all the time.

    In the state of Mass, he turned that state from running a billion $$ + deficit, to running a billion $$ + surpluss. He solved health care in that state, by using the private market as much as possible (because no matter how you feel on this issue, eventually governement will be involved in the solution in someway, he lessened that involvement), he shrunk the size of the state government as well.

    People accuse him of flip-flopping, when the truth is he can give “pivot points” for why he changed his mind on the issues. People change, and when should allow our elected leaders that oppurtunity. I used to support all kinds of “more liberal” causes and points, but I’ve changed, so I’m going to allow people in this race that chance to change.

    The people, who say, “I”m LDS and NOT voting for Mitt because he is LDS (and I don’t want people to think that’s the reason I’m voting for him)” just as misguided as those who say, “I”m not voting for Mitt because he is LDS/Or Hillary because she is a woman/Or Obama because he is black” If you find a candidate who matches up (mostly, becasue there is never going to be a 100% perfect candidate) with your values, the things you hold dear, vote for that person. Go to their website, see what they are saying, listen to them stump….judge them by the fruits of their labors.

  • Naismith January 29, 2008, 5:19 am

    I agree with agardner that Edwards and Obama are people of integrity. I was particularly impressed with an interview with Obama that I saw a few years back, about how he and his wife were coping with their little girls and dad in the Senate and the lifebalance thing. They decided to “opt out” of the inside-the-beltway social status thing, and never moved to Washington…she kept her job in Chicago, and he flew home every weekend.

    I also have so much respect for the Edwards, who have had challenge after challenge in their lives. Their eldest son was killed in a car accident, and they established a scholarship fund in his memory. They had two more children in her 50s in part to fill that gap in their lives. I particularly loved that they had the second child to be a buddy for the first, because that’s what we did as well after our 10-year gap.

    I don’t think the field of candidates is such a desert waste, not if you consider both sides of the ticket.

  • facethemusic January 29, 2008, 6:09 am

    Agreed Naismith– people on both sides can have integrity.

    The reasons you state for admiring them though can be said on both sides as well. Im’ sure they’ve all had their personal tragedies and challenges and have had to make some tough decisions. But admiring someone for getting through tough family situations like death and such, and where they choose to live aren’t reasons for voting for someone to be president. I realize that you didn’t say that’s why you are voting for one of them– if you are– but while integrity IS an issue that’s important to the race, admiring a person for how many challenges a person has succesffully come through, and where they chose to live don’t really bear on the subject.
    If you think about it, Obama’s whole family could have moved to Washington, and I could state the exact opposite reason you stated, to express why I admire him.
    “I was particularly impressed with an interview with Obama that I saw a few years back, about how he and his wife were coping with their little girls and dad in the Senate and the lifebalance thing. At first, keeping her job was more important to her than living with her husband, and more important than having her children in the same household with him. And at first, his job in Washington was more important to HIM than keeping the family together. Plus, they were concerned that if they all packed up and went to Washington, that people would think they were moving just to soak in the “inside the beltway social status thing”, so she and the kids stayed in Chicago so she could keep HER job, while their father lived in DC so he could pursue HIS. So their children only got to see their father on the weekend– less often than I see the cashier at Walmart. But then, they decided being together as a family every day was more important than where they live, and more important than what others thought about their “social status motives” so they moved to Washington.”
    Do you see what I mean? Either one of those could be “admirable” depending on the philosophy and opinions of the speaker.

  • Alison Moore Smith January 31, 2008, 2:05 am

    Posted By: facethemusicI haven’t heard about the adultery issue with McCain– is it something he admitted?

    Absolutely. The woman who raised their kids while he was a POW was the one he cheated on–with his younger, wealthy honey.

    And, yes, I’m so glad Gingrich didn’t run. It would have been the trifecta of adulterers in the party of “family values.” Gingrich is probably the most disgusting of the bunch.

    Naismith, I agree. Sincerely, I would vote for Obama before I’d vote for McCain. If it’s Clinton vs. McCain, I’ll won’t know what to do. As George Will said, that’s an echo, not a choice. I would probably throw Romney a write-in.

    I find Edwards more problematic with regard to his integrity. His calls for “one America” and helping the middle class certainly aren’t reflected in his lifestyle.

  • partone July 8, 2011, 4:42 pm

    **I also have so much respect for the Edwards**

    Just ran across this. Naismith promotes the integrity of Edwards! Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv badge