TPM: Herman Cain's Morning From Hell

I don't think that a person's sexual history is necessarily a measure of what kind of leader he will be--but you have to question the integrity of a person who repeatedly harasses women and has illicit affairs. I thought Bill Clinton was a fairly effective president, but in large part I feel that his wife helped pull his fat out of the fire when he was caught. I don't see Cain's wife supporting him at all.

 

So is it kind of like the morality of the priest having no bearing on the validity of the sacraments he performs?

 

Straw man.

 

It's not a straw man at all. At least I didn't mean it to be. I was serious. For better or worse my apparent naivety is genuine. I know... but it's true. But just so I know for future reference, how would that be a straw man?

 

What do priests have to do with anything in this thread? It seems as if you're on an anti-religion roll right now.

However, since you seem determined to harsh my mellow . . . the priest is not infallible. There has only been one perfect human being and He is not on Earth right now. Even if a priest is not "pure," he is still able to act as a priest if his conscience permits it. When a priest is ordained, it is expected that he is a priest forever, until he is removed from service and is freed from his vows. Even a priest that has "left the church" and removed himself from his post is not free to marry until his obligation to his vows has been dissolved. The vessel might be imperfect, but that which flows through him remains valid.

So, in a vain effort to connect this with Cain somehow--and it's an invalid, imperfect comparison because politicians don't take sacred vows of any sort--Cain is not a perfect person, but we cannot expect him to be. If he errs in his personal life (and who hasn't) then we need to accept that he is imperfect and will err. If he has the skills and the knowledge to be a good president, then that's what we need to vote on, not his perfection or imperfection as a human being. However, I would be less sanguine about voting for him than I would be about voting for a man who did not have such flaws in his past, who had equal skills and knowledge because I would doubt his integrity and his ability to make good decisions.

 

I was making an analogy, but obviously not a very good one. My point was essentially yours in that a not very moral (however you define that) person can still be an effective politician and can still do good things and can still leave the country better off than it was when she or he took over. The operative word here being "can".

Yes I am on kind of an anti religious roll right now. This garbage in the House regarding "in God We Trust" has annoyed me quite a bit.

 

But Tak, that has nothing to do with actual religion and everything to do with a cynical Congress desperately attempting to hold onto their voting public. It was entirely ceremonial and has nothing to do with anything preached in any church in the land. You're laying the blame on the wrong doorstep.

 

No, I'm not. I'm not laying the blame on your doorstep. But I am laying the blame on that of the Fundies. Some of the people in Congress who voted for this are cynically sucking up to the voters and probably at least as many as that or more actually believe it. But the very fact that a vote like this occurred says volumes about the power of the bsc religious Right in this country.

 

A. They aren't allegations in at least two cases.
B. The accusers would love to prove the allegations but Cain and/or the NRA would have to release them from the settlement agreement.
C. The politician certainly has to prove that he/she can be trusted.

I'm just waiting for some media group to come along and say, "Hey. we'll give you the $35,000 that you'd have to pay back if you break the settlement agreement if you give us an exclusive interview." The problem with that is everyone know Cain isn't going to be the nominee. It's going to be Romney.

 

I thought I read that the restaurant association already said they'd release one of the women from the agreement if she wanted to provide details.

 

You did and she chose not to speak. Hummmm?? I guess that did not fit with moen's facts, did it?