I, like many others, can never get enough Weiner

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Anthony Weiner is just another garden-variety scumbag with absolutely no personal integrity.

The question I would like to ask is whether we should really care about this?  That is, given the choice, would we rather have people in government who are garden-variety scumbags -- but who advocate for policies that we believe optimally serve the interests of the citizenry -- or people who have high moral character, but are incompetent at governing and/or are completely wrong-headed when it comes to public policy?

My own sense is that I'd rather have someone skim half a million from the public coffers and make decisions that save us billions than someone who is squeaky clean -- but whose incompetence undermines justice and prudence.
 

Comments

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

My apologies for making an incorrect assumption based on this statement you made, which I thought implied that you believed that homosexuality was wrong, particularly since you were so vehement about Lincoln not being homosexual:

The homosexual rumor was started a few years ago by a group with an agenda.

Again, my apologies. I made a flippant remark about what some people would consider President Lincoln's "skeleton." It's obviously been taken entirely the wrong way.

But hey why let facts get in the way of a salacious story?
This is where you made an assumption about me simply for bringing up the subject. I know full well that men who traveled together often shared the same bed in the 19th century and even into the early 20th century For this reason I believe it's silly for people to consider this a "skeleton" in his closet, and I, personally, would have liked him to have the comfort of a lover. This is what I originally stated, and that was when you questioned if I'd read what you wrote, in a rather hostile manner, I might add. Hence my reaction. Again, my apologies. In the past you've declared yourself a member of the religious right, so I had no idea that you did not support their staunch stand against civil rights for homosexuals.

As far as the founding fathers are concerned, they are generally considered to be everyone who signed the constitution, or in some way participated in the founding of America. However,it's also acknowledged that the key founding fathers are considered the men who actually wrote the constitution. The men who wrote the constitution are the ones who actually created the foundation for the USA, and they were NOT religious people. The constituion is the foundation of the country, not the founding fathers themselves, and this is why the there is such a strong declaration against creating a state religion. This is an historical fact, not just an assertion made by someone in a paper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

http://www.foundingfathers.info/

http://colonialhall.com/biography.php

http://www.constitutionday.com/constitution-founding-fathers.html

This last link I've included only because it demonstrates how far some members of the religious right will go in attempting to violate the constitution by declaring the united states as a christian country:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/4736/david_barton%3A_creationist_founding_fathers_settled_debate_over_evolution/

Again, my apologies for the assumption.