The ExGovernator's messy personal life is all over the news this week, and he IS a political figure, so here goes. The question being thrown around is, would he have been elected if it was known then that he had fathered a child outside of his marriage? Did he use any state funds to keep the situation quiet?
I don't care, and you shouldn't either.
If you hire a guy for a job, it's none of your business what they do with their sperm. If they do the job then keep them; if they don't then fire them. Even if they have someone hidden in the podium orally servicing them while they're giving a speech. If the guy makes it through the speech, LEAVE HIM ALONE. It's not your problem, it's his. Unless you want the government regulating your sex life, then you shouldn't try to regulate the government's.
However, since everybody seems to think that a politician's personal life IS of importance, then paying state money to keep it quiet becomes an expense on the par of a clothing budget. The attempt to make it into an issue is no more than a search to officially penalize someone for something you just don't like.
Ditto for Palin's family, Newt's wives, Ensign's mistress, Edwards' mistress, and especially Clinton's intern. People are people and unless you're electing them to have sex with their spouses, it's a non-issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment