I have noticed some of the comments on the pieces regarding San Diego’s scandal-ridden mayor, Bob Filner, saying that the news is a distraction from items that really impact citizens, and that the women were consenting adults who didn’t complain…so what Filner did wasn’t really a big deal.
On the other hand, Mandy has to ask, “Has the world gone crazy?”
Now, it turns out that Colin Powell Denies Affair With Romanian Diplomat After Guccifer Hacking. I am suspicious of 10-years of electronic correspondence that included bathing suit pictures of the diplomat, but it acts as a reminder that sex scandals plague members of all political persuasions…so please don’t gloat too much over the Democrat’s recent array of embarrassments.
That being said, why really does it matter? In the case of Filner, there are three reasons:
1) If an elected representative cannot keep serious vows made to a loved one, what are the chances that difficult promises will be kept to voters?
2) The mainstream media was culpable: It did not give voters the information needed to make a fully informed choice this November.
3) It is indicative of the power-perk expectations of the leadership of both parties, who feel entitled to privileges not available to regular Americans.
Here’s how it works:
1) Filner breaks promises – He campaigned on a platform of transparency and openness, but Mayor Bob Filner’s City Hall has been slow to release public records, which can take weeks or even months to see the light of day.
2) The mainstream media essentially ignored the breaking news of victims filing claims…until the local Democratic Party and National Committee finally recognized his behavior was so odious they had to call for his resignation. In fact, one brave reporter admitted his profession’s contribution to this awful situation.
It is interesting to note that Filner’s very competent and civic-minded opponent in the November election, Cal DeMaio was derided for being a gay man not openly supportive of gay marriage. I am thinking voters would have liked to have known about the “Filner Headlock” and Filner’s alleged man-handling of interns prior to making their final selection. They might have made a different choice.
3) The “perks” Filner enjoyed include Paris junkets, a $100,000 gift from a developer, and campaign debt payoffs for city deals.
If a candidate can objectify women, then it is easy to also objectify the people that the public servant is supposed to serve. Then they feel the rules don’t apply to them.
Being a scientist interested in “behavioral biochemistry,” I recently completed a book: Sex at Dawn. There was a description of a candidate who came completely clean about an extra-marital affair he was having that was blessed by his wife. I have to say, I would weigh such a campaigner more seriously about his policies if he was that upfront about his personal life.
These are just a few of the many reasons these scandals matter to American voters and taxpayers. Next time, I want the opportunity to fully vet the people on the ballot.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY