'You can't be a good President if you cheat on your spouse!' WHAT?!

[WednesdayAddams]

One of the things that has always caused me to scratch my head in befuddlement at the Grand Old Party is the assertion that Fenris made earlier today in this thread, namely:

Originally Posted by Fenris

*Also the fact that he apparently consistently cheated on his wife. I don't care if it's Clinton, Newt, Weiner, Packwood, Edwards or Cain, if you can't be trusted to keep the most basic, easy vow** "Honey, I promise not to put my dick in another woman's vagina", how can you trust them with selling cars, let alone running the country?

**Yeah, yeah, any of them might have an open marriage. If Ms. Edwards or Ms Cain comes out and says "We're polyamorous. Want to make something of it?", fine with me. But no-one ever has.

I'm sorry, how's that again? You're saying, then, that infidelity automatically precludes ability to effectively govern, because it speaks to one's character of not being able to keep a promise*.

Yeah, I don't see it. It's a black and white interpretation of a complex issue that has nothing whatever to do with one's ability. Far worse, IMO, is the crippling effects this puritanical stance is having on the party. Mitt Romney is the best you can put forward? Really? That's just sad. What's more important, the state of the nation's economy, or whether the President gets some strange every so often? And if it's the latter...I think your priorities are a bit skewed. We need wonks right now. I don't care that Michelle Bachmann took a pledge that she's faithful to her husband. I could give a fuck less that Newt Gingrich is on wife #4. It simply does. Not. Matter. Moreover, until the base understands that, the Republicans are going to be saddled with mediocre candidates who can only speak to the 'social issues.' When did that happen?

Conservatives are doing themselves a disservice by focusing on sex. Right now they need candidates who can speak seriously to the issues and show they're capable of making sound decisions based on proven policy.

I'm interested in hearing exactly what, beyond 'it speaks to character!' gives us the right to delve into a couple's marriage. Because quite honestly, there are too many examples of those able to compartmentalize and govern well to say that it's accurate.


*Please note: I am talking about consensual sex between two (or whatever) parties. Sexual harrassment and/or rape is a completely different animal, and should be prosecuted.