Politics is, by nature, a dishonest, unseemly business.

[LongtimeAZDem]

Anyone who has the requisite narcissism to run for political office is going to manifest it at some point, sometimes in unpalatable ways. And the capriciousness of the electorate precludes openness and honesty, for what is acceptable at one point will be poison at another.

I think that the Northam picture is grossly over the line, and I think Dr. Tyson is probably telling the truth as she sees it. That said, I also believed that there was some truth behind Paula Jones‘ story, and Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright was disturbing.

But I’m not a Democrat because I believe that we are all good, and Republicans are all evil. I’m a Democrat because the planet is heating up, and the oil is running out; I’m a Democrat because I think people should be able to go to the doctor when they need to, and the all children have the right to the best possible education in a free and open forum. I’m a Democrat because I think that regulations are required to keep poisons out of our food and wealth from aggregating in too few hands.

Finding out disturbing facts from politician’s pasts should be call for debate, discussion, and education, with the promise of doing better in the future. But if we sacrifice every one of our candidates for perceived character flaws, no matter how unsubstantiated they are or how far back they occurred, then we will achieve nothing at all.

Continuing to support those who have erred is not necessarily excusing or even justifying their behavior. It’s recognizing that the pool of those motivated enough to put themselves into the political arena are not likely to be saints in the first place.

Because the planet is heating up, and the oil is running out.

[ProfessorPlum]

1. really well written

[dalton99a]

2. We're hiring people, not saints, to do a job.

[uponit7771]

3. K&R, we should ... NOT ... take sledge hammers to fruit flies every time someones past comes up ...

... there should be a process from democrats that include and investigation before a chorus of calls come out.

[dalton99a]

4. +1. And don't use capital punishment for every offense.

[Firestorm49]

5. Very good, and to the point. I agree wholeheartedly.

[Mr. Quackers]

6. Wasn't always that way

Folks used to "stand" for office. It was an honor and it meant you had the assent of your community. Many modest men would possibly decline such an honor. It was something of a sacrifice too, given the primitive nature of transport and communication in the United States in its early years.

Keep in mind too, we were an agrarian civilization as late as the end of WWI, some argue.

What we have now has nothing to do with decency, community, or character when looked at overall.

[LongtimeAZDem]

7. Sure it was; many of the people we hold in historical esteem had very disturbing

personal histories.

In today's climate we would never be able to elect an FDR, or a JFK, or a Truman; Clinton would never have beaten Bush. We have sacrificed genuine analysis of character for immediate dismissal based on missteps.

[Blue_true]

9. Most of the Founders owned slaves, some of them a lot of slaves.

I view that as abhorrent. But during their day, that was the accepted norm, as unfortunate as that sounds. Some made it possible for their slaves to be free upon the death of the slavemaster.

If we evaluate them on today's standards, they were beyond evil men. But when evaluated in the frame of their time renders a far less conclusive verdict.

When looking at Northam, did he grow as a person over 35 years?

When looking at Fairfax, what has been his overall character and dealings with women in private and public? Maybe that helps shed some light on him.

On Herring, my feelings is that he was not the adult that he thought that he was at 19. I know that when I was a college freshman, I certainly was not mature and made mistakes that cause me to cringe today whenever a flashback enters my conscious mind.

[Honeycombe8]

8. I agree. We had KKK official Robert Byrd in Congress for decades...

he turned a leaf and did a lot of good work on behalf of all citizens. Whether he should have been allowed to remain, I don't know. But the voters of his state, knowing his background, continued to re-elect him.

Anthony Weiner was allowed to remain in Congress until he finally committed the faux pas of all faux pas: taking one of his dirty pics INSIDE the Capitol Hill's locker room. THEIR sanctity. THEIR hallowed ground. Fear that THEY would be caught in a Weiner picture. But initially, there were no bandwagons formed to oust Weiner, despite his sending out repeatedly pics of his johnson to virtual strange women around the country. Even after he was caught and warned.

This shift to jump on ouster bandwagons is very disturbing, esp since they are going after ELECTED officials. People elected by their constituents. If the constituents want to oust them, they should. But it's disturbing when others (some of whom have something to gain) oust others who are elected even in other states.

Maybe the Democratic Party should draw up a purity test, so officials will know if they are pure enough to run.

And when you start doing that, you have to continue. But it seems that NOW people want to start drawing exceptions. Oh, yeah we want to oust him. But not this guy over here...I like him. This one's different. But that one over there, elected by other people...yeah, oust that one. We're in dangerous territory. This started with Franken. They did not oust Menendez, who was embroiled in a fraud trial for a year and undergoing an ethics investigation. There was no bandwagon to oust him. Those who oust, like to pick and choose.