posted on June 16, 2008 11:26:39 AM new
In yet another Presidential election, the Democrats are still married to their first spouses (Hillary, Obama) while the Republicans are supporting a man who appears to have married for eye candy and money.
In the last decade or so, the Republicans have tended to support candidates who've been divorced and remarried, while the Democrats' candidates have pretty consistently been still on their first spouses.
I may be over-generalizing, but what does this say about Democratic values vs Republican? We've been amused over the years to see this.
_____________________
posted on June 21, 2008 12:01:29 AM new
that is an interesting view of the political parties..
i am independent, and some how the democrats think i am republican and the other way around for the republicans, and they all want to argue about why their guy is so wonderful and the other guy is a jerk ..
so i really enjoy finding a fact that actually points up a difference between the parties rather than the constant focus on personality's .. not that who the person we elect isn't important, but thank you for the tidbit..
mizpeppertree, there are many significant facts which serve to define the difference between candidates. How long a candidate stays married isn't relevant in my opinion except as a gossip item. Your term "tidbit" describes that consideration well.
posted on June 21, 2008 10:27:01 AM new
Well, let me explain! My husband and I have noticed for quite a few years that the Republican party (the party of "family values" has had candidate after candidate (the George Bushes and Richard Nixon excepted) who divorced the first wife and married the second (like Ronald Reagan and John McCain). This is a contrast to the Democratic party (the party that, according to some, is going to h--l in a handbasket). Look at Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Barack Obama, and also look at the Democrats who were in the running a few months ago (like John Edwards (and I'm blanking on the rest!).
And there's Jimmy Carter, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson.
I agree the length of a marriage shouldn't matter, but if we want to contrast the Family Values party with the other party, there may be a valid contrast here.
_____________________
Republicans use the term "family values" to fight abortion, gay marriage and feminists. If they really cared about family values they would support day care for children and a living wage. Single mothers raising children constitute a family too.
They also use the term as a basis on which to attack political opponents. And isn't it interesting that while they attack a political opponent who strays from the family norm they define themselves as flaming hypocrites.
posted on June 21, 2008 01:21:13 PM new
Yup, Helen! It's the hypocrisy. It's *always* the hypocrisy with me, whether it's with a church that shows a bright face to the world but has a dark side, or a political entity. I loath hypocrisy.
_____________________
posted on June 21, 2008 08:16:50 PM new
Call me old-fashioned, I would like my president to a be a man or woman whom I can respect. Honestly, it is hard for me to accept candidates who are unfaithful to their wives and family, it calls into question their integrity. Would I vote for Bill Clinton again? Probably not. In the same category falls John McCain, JFK. In eras when divorce was not feasible, it's another story. FDR and Eleanor had an arrangement, not based on deceit, according to my understanding. Ike and Mamie, I'm still not sure.
[ edited by pixiamom on Jun 21, 2008 08:34 PM ]
posted on June 21, 2008 08:24:53 PM new
Roadsmith, I totally agree with you on the "dark side of a church". My dad might roll over in his grave but the Episcopal church has become so inflexible and unforgiving with any dissention or differing opinion that I can't see myself ever going back.
posted on June 21, 2008 09:26:42 PM new
Pixi: I know what you mean. I couldn't live with a man who was unfaithful and I couldn't vote for a man who would treat his wife that way. (Newt Gingrich chose to tell his wife he was divorcing her as she lay in the hospital with cancer. John McCain married Cindy about a month after his divorce was final.)
And about the dark side of churches, we preacher's kids know well what that can be like. I've been very encouraged to see a groundswell in the evangelical movement toward obeying one of God's commandments, to care for the earth.
Now if some of those gluttons would only recognize that the sin of gluttony is every bit as bad as sexual sin. . . .
I know I'm sounding sanctimonious. I just get so impatient.
_____________________
posted on June 26, 2008 05:29:25 PM new
John Kerry is on his 2nd wife, divorcing the 1st. UGH, Cindy McCain is not eyecandy - perhaps at one time but it was probably the money that hooked him.
has had candidate after candidate (the George Bushes and Richard Nixon excepted) who divorced the first wife and married the second (like Ronald Reagan and John McCain). This is a contrast to the Democratic party (the party that, according to some, is going to h--l in a handbasket). Look at Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Barack Obama, and also look at the Democrats who were in the running a few months ago (like John Edwards (and I'm blanking on the rest!).