“Could voters elect a president that lacks integrity?”
I believe history shows the answer to be a big “hell yes”.
Posted by ben_b on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:40 PM
The ability of voters to be manipulated to vote for a man with utterly no integrity was proven in 2008. 90% of the American people reject the left wing ideology of Leo Gerard
Posted by Liberal Soup N Crackers on Oct 31, 2012 at 12:38 PM
Richard Nixon, George Bush and Romney would complete the triumvirate of Slime.
Posted by Gary Kirk on Nov 1, 2012 at 12:07 PM
I would never defend a right-wing, religious nut like Mourdock, but I strongly doubt that Mourdock meant anything other than ‘the beginning of life’ is what God intended to happen, not the ‘rape’.
In an article about integrity, I think criticism should be made of Democrats not stepping up to point out the obvious ambiguity here rather than running with the political interpretation. This was their ‘George Washington’ moment that THEY blew.
Posted by Todd Saalman on Nov 1, 2012 at 1:26 PM
If the white house becomes home to the Rs, it will be a short stay. Neither can stop being a liar, it is who they are, it is what they do. The impeachment process will be very brief. But, I doubt the Rs can win. By the time the next election takes place, our bi polar political ponzimonster will be defunct.
These times are a changin’
Posted by puma on Nov 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM
you actually think that “Bathhouse Barry” actually has integrity? Come on, the guy is so in love with himself he makes the word narcissist seem tame. He plays games with your head, throwing scraps to labor and the poor, free cell phones are nice but the sure as hell will not lift the poor from poverty, and then he turns on all of us by far more egregiousness destruction of our liberties by expanding the police state more rapidly than George W. ever imagined. We are being duped. What Wall Street executive has gone to jail? What corporation has been reigned in from global dominance? And who is keeping the Pacific trade pac totally secrete as the negotiate the taking of our national rights, those of labor in particular, for the benefit of global corporate rule—what we have here, folks is a red hearing, a canard for what we are getting is not social justice in any form, but fascism—pure and simple, big government and big business. We are all being duped.
Posted by Tim Straus on Nov 2, 2012 at 4:59 PM
to the RAPEublicans I ask, should the president be raped by gay men and he contracts the HIV/AIDS virus, is that God’s will as well???
Posted by Kevin Jewell on Nov 2, 2012 at 5:42 PM
The issue is not when does life begin so much as imminent domain.
Does any woman have any right to decide for herself when and if she will carry a fetus to term or does she need a “decider” to make that decision for her?
Does a any man or woman have the right to force a woman to bear a child?
Did God write the constitution?
Did god write Roe v Wade?
Since when does a politician’s personal religious beliefs empower her or him to make law’s based on god’s intention?
Is he saying that he knows what god intends?
Religious freedom and the freedom to make decisions about her own body are a woman’s birthright.
No court can or should “decide” for her.
Posted by puma on Nov 2, 2012 at 5:53 PM
Mitt Romney and the GOP in general: Evil on a Stick.
Posted by Dave Morgan on Nov 3, 2012 at 1:34 AM
Politicians are all liars. But at his core, Obama is a centrist Democrat faking populism, forever supporting the status quo, while Romney is a pretend right-winger looking to push us back to the 1850’s with his Golden Rule. As in, he with the gold, makes the rules. Like the insanely rich need governmental assistance in becoming richer, or consolidating more power. And both will wholeheartedly support the police state. I’m disappointed that Obama has, but do you seriously think that Romney would be any different?
Posted by Mike on Nov 3, 2012 at 2:31 AM
It will be disgrace to allow a persistent liar to take residence in the White House. Time and time again as Mr. Gerard has pointed out that Romney has no core/integrity.
Posted by ApoLakay on Nov 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM
Well, both parties have elected presidents without honor. Consider the (renewed) middle class admiration for Bill “Kill the New Deal/Give Us NAFTA” Clinton—the guy who took an ax to the very policies that created the powerful middle class we once had!
Posted by DHFabian on Nov 3, 2012 at 1:41 PM
Please come back to earth. None of what you wrote correlates with the facts. Even on an issue as incidental as free cell phones enabling people to get out of deep poverty, how do you get a job without a phone? How do you have a landline if you have no home? You can fill out job applications until your hand turns numb, but if employers can’t reach you, it’s pointless. What “destruction of our liberties” are you talking about??? The greatest threat the US ever had when it comes to liberties was the Dept. Homeland Security, Bush’s baby. The reality in the US is that it can be almost impossible to imprison a rich person, but step by step, President Obama has been reversing the agenda that gave corporations such god-like power since the Reagan admin. Reducing the power (which had nearly become unlimited) of the corporate elite is the opposite of fascism. And finally, admittedly, President Obama has not yet repaired all the damage caused by over 30 years of corporatist policies—policies that have caused extraordinary damage throughout the western world. But he has made incredible progress, far more than any grownup could have expected.
Posted by DHFabian on Nov 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM
Being a centrist Democrat is very different from being a Clinton Democrat. I strongly disagree that President Obama has “faked” anything. Conditions became so severe by the end of the Bush admin that people wanted someone who could, basically, turn the ship around instantly. That can’t be done. But Obama has been steadily turning the ship, getting it back on course. Fact is, without a massive middle class, the US can’t survive. The middle class has been shrinking since the Reagan administration. Without addressing poverty, the middle class can’t be rebuilt. That is the central thing that this administration has been working on.
Posted by DHFabian on Nov 3, 2012 at 2:05 PM
I think that’s what Mourdock meant, too, but I also think this issue is far too complex to be dictated by politicians. People believe what they believe, and the issue of when a merging of two cells becomes a person, therefore the issue of abortion itself, is intensely personal, and can only be made by the woman. What I don’t accept is the argument based on a “reverence for life” in a country that treats the poor (esp. women and children) so harshly, contemptuously, punitively. Add in a couple hundred years of “conflict resolution” as well as “wealth enhancement” achieved by massive bloodshed, and you see how ludicrous it is to claim that America has any “reverence for life.”
Posted by DHFabian on Nov 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM
Although one note about Richard Nixon: On social/economic policies, Nixon was certainly to the left of Bill Clinton. I doubt if his expansion of welfare programs had anything to do with empathy for the poor, but he actually was keenly aware of how and why legitimate welfare programs reduced poverty and grew the middle class, and a huge middle class is necessary to keep our entire economic system from utter collapse. It might be hard for post-Reagan Americans to understand it, but those pushed into poverty can almost never climb out when there are no rungs on that proverbial ladder out of poverty. So, the number of poor grows as the middle class shrinks. The middle class are those who purchase products, making it necessary to produce more products, creating more jobs, further reducing poverty and increasing tax revenues, etc.
Posted by DHFabian on Nov 3, 2012 at 2:27 PM
On what do you base your statement that President Obama has no integrity? Regarding Leo Gerard, it isn’t “leftist” when the working class stands with the working class, not against it. There is nothing, to my knowledge, “leftist” in Leo Gerard’s ideology, and it has been entirely consistent with what the majority of ordinary people think. He has been down to earth, practical. The problem is that the pendulum swung so far to the right with Reagan that policies viewed as “middle of the road” for decades now look left-wing to Republicans.
Posted by DHFabian on Nov 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Fabian is on target—-since 1980 the middle class has been robbed blind by Wall Street——sent our jobs overseas. Banks got big by charging hi rates. Minimum wage stagnant—Bush tax cuts for rich
5% got 48% bottom 60% got 16%—Bush job creation lowest since Hoover. Yet much wealth was created.
Posted by Clarence Swinney on Nov 3, 2012 at 3:19 PM
There are already two excellent programs that provide cell phones to people who need them most: low income people and survivors of domestic violence. Perhaps many readers are familiar with the universal lifeline program. To qualify, a person has to prove that their income is in the very low income bracket. The service is an unmeasured service for local calls. A couple years ago, the option to have a life line cell phone was made available to this same population. So, if a person is homeless this service is extremely useful. Imaging what it might be like to share a payphone with 75 or 100 people who you do not know. It would be very difficult to conduct a job or housing search. So, the lifeline program helps. The second program, for survivors of domestic violence, provides a burner phone to those who are on the run or in a shelter.
Neither program requires credit screening.
I am in favor of Francis Pixon’s proposal: more needs to be done to connect people in need with the resources available to them.
Posted by puma on Nov 4, 2012 at 12:23 AM
Can anyone fail to see how utterly incoherent it is to assert (like Mourdock) that God did not intend the rape to happen, but DID intend it to cause a pregnancy? They are asking us to believe that God, looking down from heaven, sees a rape about to happen and does nothing. But once the deed is done, God, apparently on a whim, decides whether or not to guide the little sperm to meet the egg.
Posted by Rob Lewis on Nov 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Oh ... and Obama is a veritable example of ‘honesty’?? Sorry, but there are two sides to every coin, and every story. Unfortunately, ALL politicians have some problems in this area of ‘honesty’ ... because they’re ‘deal-makers’, trying to win over many different kinds of voters with many different agendas. That’s why, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or whatever, we need term limits so elected officials have much less chance of establishing their power ‘fiefdoms’. You shouldn’t have to have a law degree to run for office (OR to understand laws that are written.) Everything should be plain, simple, straight-forward so ALL can understand, IMHO.
Posted by Adler_kf on Nov 6, 2012 at 1:41 PM