Politicians who fllourished after a scandal

Newt, we hardly knew yah.

Oliver North

Ronald Reagan

I'm only going to do three a day.


Joe

Newt? Scandal with the ex-wife? Resigns from political life. Another Republican who will not be speaking at this year's Republican convention.

Ollie? Military guy leaves the military. Unsuccessfully runs for the Senate. Another Republican who didn't come through.

Reagan? You're breaking the rule. He was the focus of Iran-Contra, but didn't receive any public 'punishment.' This is like Hillary and Whitewater: No penalty, we can't use that person as an example.

Still looking for the Sharpton-Teddy-Clinton equivalent......

Rudolph Guliani who is a key note speaker for the republican national convention cheated on his wife.

So did Strom Thurmond.

Rush Limbaugh (not a politician granted, though i'll still cite him) was addicted to drugs, republicans still embrace him as well.

George W. Bush got a DWI when he was well into adulthood.

So no, i really dont agree with your thesis that democrats are more morally unscrupulous then are republicans. I feel the number of politicians that continue to do well and who are thought of well after any scandal is probably similar for both parties.

Jerry Springer was a beloved elected official in ohio before he was caught having shtooped a prostitute. i'm not sure of the details, but you can hear the story on This American Life. he was a tried and true kennedy democrat, i guess, in every sense of the word. the guy is no dummy, and when he was serving the public he was incredibly successful and popular.

if you want me to find the link to the show, i'll look it up. a really interesting story.

the last i heard, he was considering leaving tv and getting back getting back into politics.

Vincent "Buddy" Cianci, former mayor of Providence, RI served the longest term for a mayor in the US, 21 years.

About 10 or so years into his mayorship, he and a couple of his goons went over to the house of his estranged wife and beat the crap out of her boyfriend. After messing the boyfriend up, Cianci peed on him and put a cigarrette out in his bellybutton.

After the news broke, he was forced to step down from his post as mayor. For those few years in exile from public office, he became a restauranteur, he had a radio show.

But he couldn't keep away from public life, so once the deadline passed that said he could run again, he changed his party affiliation from Republican to Independent and he won handily in his re-bid for mayor.

Corrupt as he was, when he was running for mayor the second time around he never had any opponents.

If we were going to count every politician who cheated on a spouse, we would be down to a few people!



Where did I say that? I asked if Democrats were more forgiving, but I didn't say unscrupulous.

Rush Limbaugh has never been elected, so you can't count him. If we did, we would have about 15 pages of Hollywood stars.

And Virgil, you have to admit cheating on your wife or getting a DUI is a long way away from leaving a date under water or belonging to the KKK or looking into the camera and saying "I did not have sex...."

Anyway, after the Guliani scandal broke, didn't he resign from the New York senate race? 9-11 is what brought him back to life?

Another one: (Republican side)

4. John Garimondi, California Insurance commissioner resigns after finding of campaign fraud.

"Where did I say that? I asked if Democrats were more forgiving, but I didn't say unscrupulous."

Perhaps i was reading too much into it, but i got the feeling that you were implying that democrats are in possession of less scruples than republicans. However after rereading i seem to have misread, i apologize.

"Rush Limbaugh has never been elected, so you can't count him. If we did, we would have about 15 pages of Hollywood stars."

Fair enough, however as far as i know it Rev. Al Sharpton wasnt elected for anything either, yet you feel he is worth noting. So is the rule "no unelected officials" or "no unelected republicans"?

"And Virgil, you have to admit cheating on your wife or getting a DUI is a long way away from leaving a date under water or belonging to the KKK or looking into the camera and saying 'I did not have sex....'"

Certainly in the case of Mr. Kennedy i would say there is quite a big difference. But personally I would say the DWI is far worse then Clinton's indiscretions, and even Byrds KKK affiliation(given he never actually harmed anyone) though a close childhood friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver so that may be my bias.

But really, in America a sex scandal is almost as detrimental to a political career as either of the actions taken by Mr. Byrd (who by the way, has long since renounced his racist past) and Mr. Kennedy. so i find it a bit intellectually dishonest to say that these Republican icons are allowed to have recovered and not be counted here because the issue was not significant in your view. While I agree the issue is NOT significant, it is an issue that has been the downfall of countless politicians, Strom and Guiliani both survived the fallout and are celebrated today by the Republican party. Is that not the issue we are talking about?

"Anyway, after the Guliani scandal broke, didn't he resign from the New York senate race? 9-11 is what brought him back to life?"

He is still a key note speaker this coming convention and i suppose a "republican hero", if that gives Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Clinton (Note: who has not been elected to anything since, however you put him on your list because he is seen as a "hero" it seems to me you are using all sorts of different criteria for judging and its becoming convoluted) a reason to be on your list, Mr. Guliani is just as viable.

I feel we need to clear up the rules a bit:

You claim that Rush Limbaugh is not a viable target because he is "unelected" However you use Al Sharpton in your main post. Why the inconsistancy? Care you clear that up?

You need to use the same criteria, you seem to use election and reelection as the basis of your judgement, of which Clinton never got a chance for either (after the fact), i would argue he cant be brought up unless you change the rules and judge everyone with same standards.

i apologize if my post is not very coherent, however i've been up for almost 40 hours now and i still have a few more until i can get some sleep. I apologize in advance.

Actually, the mentioning of Nixon & Watergate is only half the story. Didn't Nixon recover from a scandal involving accepting improper gifts? That's what the Checkers speech is about, see: http://www.watergate.info/nixon/checkers-speech.shtml So Nixon recovered in a big way, he was elected President and then reelected. His recovery would've been complete if not for that pesky Watergate incident.

The young woman who disappeared in D.C. a few years ago. They finally found her body in a park? She was having an affair with a Senator from California, correct? Was he a Dem or Republican or what?

gary condit, eoe, but he never recovered from the scandal. the woman was chandra levy.

Oh yeah. We're talking about those who flourished.
Never mind.

Crime and sin are flourishing every where
"the Lone voice", politicians do not corner the market.
HOWEVER, mothers still love their Sons, and Fathers still love their daughters...

and you are by FAR, not a 'lone voice'. Counting only the 'voices' here on A2K that pronounce their distaste with Democrats, would put you in a huge mob.

I know I am a person of 'forgiveness and Love'. I don't need to be a Dem or Rep to be so.

eoe, most people don't care about scandals like gary condit's. most of us didn't know who he was, and wouldn't have cared, but the media got a hold on the story and kept a steely grip on him. i believe he never recovered because he was so arrogant and chilly about it. the story was front page news for a long time, then september 11 happend, and the cheesy newshounds got some perspective.

You bring up some good points, Virgil. Buy......

Al Sharpton ran for President of the USA! Rush Limbaugh has never run for anything; this is not a good comparison for you to use. I'm thinking maybe the closest things the Democrats have to Rush Limbaugh is Al Franken, or can you think of someone else?



Please don't misunderstand; I'm not mentioning Clinton because he boinked Monica. I thought that was stupid and reckless for the Leader of the Free World, and made me lose respect for him. I am specifically pointing to Clinton's press conference, where I, probably you, and millions of other Americans were given the ""I didn't have sex..." BS coming out of his mouth. Like many other moderate Americans, I wasn't bothered by his "indiscretions" as much as his bold-face lie. Covering up for an affair or whatever, anytime a politician blatantly lies to the American people like that they should be thrown out of office, or have the grace to resign. If he can lie to us so easily about that, what else has he lied about? And I will say the same thing about Bush if it is later discovered he lied.

Re Byrd and the KKK: If someone joins an organization in their late teens, I say give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they matured and grew. But Byrd was a KKK member at 25 years old! Most people at 25 are pretty well shaped at that age. And we are talking about the KKK! For a 25 year old man to join such an organization of hate....

Answer me this: If a Republican who was born in 1955 joined the KKK in 1980, would he be acceptable as a candidate? I say no, regardless of party affiliation....

""Al Sharpton ran for President of the USA!"

A fact that i feel holds little relevance considering that up until this point you only said "unelected" a title that Mr. Sharpton still holds, however as to avoid semantic quibbling i'll just continue:

Anybody could run for the President of the United States. Mr. Sharpton wasnt specifically sought out by the democratic national committee, and he certainly wasn't endorsed by many democrats (look at how he didn't even come close to winning in any state during the primaries), infact much of his funding came from the GOP itself.

So what does that say about Mr. Sharpton? If we want to go by your seemingly preset standard of judging ones recovery on whether said political icon is (re)elected into a certain position, he failed miserably.

However (in my opinion) simply dwelling on elected officials (and people who are simply running for any given governmental position now) seems awfully shallow if you really want to answer the questions you originally posed. Why cant other participants of americas political environment (pundits specifically) be introduced here? Certainly their role in politics is very important and whether or not these individuals are accepted back into a viewers life as a viable and reputable source of news and ideology after a scandal seems very much analogous to a politician being let back into office.

Though of course if we were to take them into account then we would have to create a whole other system in which to judge their recovery beyond (re)election (as they never ran). Which would be very complex i'm sure. Ratings perhaps...hmmm...

"I'm thinking maybe the closest things the Democrats have to Rush Limbaugh is Al Franken, or can you think of someone else? "

Michael Moore perhaps...all bags of hot air in my opinion.

"Please don't misunderstand; I'm not mentioning Clinton because he boinked Monica. I thought that was stupid and reckless for the Leader of the Free World, and made me lose respect for him. I am specifically pointing to Clinton's press conference, where I, probably you, and millions of other Americans were given the "I didn't have sex..." BS coming out of his mouth. Like many other moderate Americans, I wasn't bothered by his "indiscretions" as much as his bold-face lie. Covering up for an affair or whatever, anytime a politician blatantly lies to the American people like that they should be thrown out of office, or have the grace to resign. If he can lie to us so easily about that, what else has he lied about? And I will say the same thing about Bush if it is later discovered he lied. "

I don't mean to go back to the 90's and discuss the Clinton scandal. That wasn't my point. My main point about Clinton is that you cant reference him because he was never given the chance to be reelected into any position so his "recovery" by the criteria we are using (though that seems to change quite often) is merely speculation and therefore moot as concerns this thread.

"Byrd and the KKK: If someone joins an organization in their late teens, I say give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they matured and grew. But Byrd was a KKK member at 25 years old! Most people at 25 are pretty well shaped at that age. And we are talking about the KKK! For a 25 year old man to join such an organization of hate...."

I will not defend the mans positions in his youth. However I do not feel, as you seem to, that ones position and ideology at the age of 25 is absolute. He has shown much regret about joining that organization and has shown in his voting records that he has changed much from his young manhood.

CNN's Bernard Shaw in Dec. 1993:

Q: What has been your biggest mistake and your biggest success?

A: Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake. The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

however in contrast Mr. Strom Thurmond is quoted in the Charlotte Observer in July 1998, when asked if he wanted to apologize he stated
"I don't have anything to apologize for," and "I don't have any regrets." When Asked if he thought the Dixiecrats were right (on issues including segregation) Thurmond said, "Yes, I do."

"Answer me this: If a Republican who was born in 1955 joined the KKK in 1980, would he be acceptable as a candidate? I say no, regardless of party affiliation..."

I would agree with you. However I dont see the point of stating the obvious. You seem to completely ignore any sort of historical context and the social mores of the times in which Mr. Byrd lived. He was not born in 1955, and he certainly did not join the KKK in 1980. He was born in 1917, in the South. He lived in much different times when MANY political players in the South were KKK members openly, and almost all were influenced to some degree by the organization. It was a time when MUCH of the South were members, and much more held sympathy for their cause if not for their means. Jim Crowe laws were still a blistering reality to every African Americans in the region. The KKK at that time period was not a taboo organization in the South. It was an awful and hateful organization still, however i feel you are being unfair when you judge someone with modern day mores without at least taking into consideration the political and social atmosphere of the time.

I am not defending his stances when he is younger, however i do feel some historical perspective is needed when looking at such issues.

off into a tangent again...

ha see what happen when the rules to the game arent set up properly at the get go? Things just turn into a mess.

For starters you need an operational definition of what constitutes recovery from a scandal, since none was given and taking from what you seemed to be using i went by the success of (re)election.

You also need to define very specifically who is applicable in this little game, and why.

Sharpton gave a keynote speech at the DNC. In all fairness, I think he most resembles Pat Buchanan at the 1996 RNC; both had no chance of winning their party's nomination, but both held enough sway to get to that podium. But Buchanan is just an idiot; I don't think he was involved in a scandal quite like the Tawana Brawley mess. See, I'm really trying to reflect my moderate leanings here.



Good call.



One simple question?: Would Clinton have been the Democratic nominee if he was allowed to run again? By contrast, Nixon was not invited to be the main keynote speaker at the 1980 RNC. I am trying to focus on politicians and scandals; anyone who speaks at a convention is usually a party stalwart.



My reason for using the dates (1955, 1980) is to reflect the actual age and years of Byrds involvement. You sound like the KKK was simply a men's social club, and I think you are being a bit disingenuous here. During Byrd's time in the KKK they were at their worst, with lynchings and cross burinings occuring much more then in later years. That would be like saying a Republican senator belonged to the Christian Identity Movement (a white supremist group) in 1980, but now has "apoligized" so everything should be ok.

Frankly, I don't think Byrd can ever be defended in this issue. Why do you think he was first elected and re-elected time after time? Because at that time, many Southern Democrats were still overtly racist, and Byrd was their main man. And age 25 should not be disgarded as "youthful indiscretion". 17, 18, ok. But not 25.



No, I said:

Maybe to clarify, I'm not referring to ex-politicos who are now in the media. I'm specifically focusing on official party interaction; either currently elected or speaking at offical events like the conventions. Ollie North, for example, has never spoken at the RNC.

I think we are still on point here. In fact, I agree with you about Guliani; scandal, withdrawl from public life, then back to life. But, I think this is 100% the result of 9-11. No 9-11, do you think Guliani would be a keynote speaker at the RNC? But I'll still give that to you. That's one.

But this is fun. I still think I'm making my point though.

Your turn........

i'm doing a little research on Robert Byrds voting record over the years and i must say i am having a very hard time finding a credible and unbiased source. However after reading some of these sites i must concede that Robert Byrd being reelected so many times after so many blunders is quite puzzling to me. He has said some pretty awful things that i have been unaware of until this point. Anyway, I'll respond to the bulk of your post later tonight.

"One simple question?: Would Clinton have been the Democratic nominee if he was allowed to run again?"

I honestly feel that after the entire Monica debacle he would not have been invited to run again for the presidency. Emotions were still too raw and heated against him, he was simply a much too divisive figure at that point in history to have had any realistic chance of winning the next election. The Right would have way too much ammunition on the man, I could be wrong of course, its pure speculation. However I really don't feel it would have been politically prudent (or wise) for the Democratic National Committee to have picked him once again if they had the choice.

"By contrast, Nixon was not Invited to be the main keynote speaker at the 1980 RNC. I am trying to focus on politicians and scandals; anyone who speaks at a convention is usually a party stalwart"

Fair enough. However that isn't to say that Mr. Nixon did not make some small recovery back into Washington life, especially in the republican party(though to be fair Democrats also, but to a smaller extent), where he was (fairly) commonly consulted about issues regarding foreign affairs. Not a splendid come back of course, however he wasn't by any means shunned by the party.

""My reason for using the dates (1955, 1980) is to reflect the actual age and years of Byrds involvement."

That I understood, however why didn't you simply use 1917-1942?

"You sound like the KKK was simply a men's social club, and I think you are being a bit disingenuous here."

I never meant to sound as if it was simply a mens club, that would certainly be an erroneous claim. I would never try to mitigate the horror that group caused thousands of people.

"During Byrd's time in the KKK they were at their worst, with lynching's and cross burinings occurring much more then in later years. That would be like saying a Republican senator belonged to the Christian Identity Movement (a white supremist group) in 1980, but now has "apologized" so everything should be OK."

As I said I would never defend what happened then and what that group of people did and what they stood (stand) for. However the reality of the matter is that a white southerner with an affiliation to the KKK at that point in time was not a rare thing by any means. It does not mean (to me) that a person's world view cannot evolve in the 50 years in which he has lived since originally forming an opinion about a subject. I'm not one to judge any politician on their past personal life if i feel they have indeed changed. (substantial evidence of course is needed to show that true change has occurred)

"Frankly, I don't think Byrd can ever be defended in this issue. Why do you think he was first elected and re-elected time after time? Because at that time, many Southern Democrats were still overtly racist, and Byrd was their main man. And age 25 should not be disgarded as "youthful indiscretion". 17, 18, ok. But not 25."

Well, I would say that no matter how much change did or did not occur, Mr. Byrd would never have won an election in a Northern State. I just don't feel from my experience that the regions constituency could accept someone with his past, the South however I feel is more tolerant of it ( I mean look at Jeff Sessions of Alabama). Which may be a reason as you stated, that he at first won in West Virginia.

Ha, I dunno, the issue of senator Byrd has been exhausted. His past actions were wrong obviously. We both agree on that. We both feel at 25 years old he was an adult and fully mature enough to understand what he was doing, and we both think he was wrong on doing it. But I fear we differ in that I feel that his opinion and views on life can evolve past the age of 25. While I get the impression, that you feel that at 25 ones view points are set for life? (I know this cannot be what you think, I would be interested if you'd clarify. Is it that you feel he should pay for his past actions?)

"no i said...Unless I'm missing something, why are there more Democrats then Republicans who have had scandals in their past who went on, and continue to be, held in high esteem by their party?"

"high esteem" is in itself quite a subjective term that means many different things to many different people. Its wording that just opens things up for semantics games, I feel a more objective operational definition of recovery would be better, however this is your thread and I shall use your rules. And using your rules I will offer a few more republicans who after being involved in a number of scandals and convicted of various misdemeanors have all gotten highly esteemed jobs under the current Bush administration (this is not an intentional slight on the Bush administration, it just happens that these three men were chosen more recently and stick out in my mind) and their political careers are better then ever. Those men and their new jobs are:

John Poindexter

"On March 16, 1988, John Poindexter was indicted on seven felony charges arising from his involvement in the Iran/contra affair, as part of a 23-count multi-defendant indictment. He was named with North, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord and Albert Hakim as a member of the conspiracy to defraud the United States Government by effecting the Iran/contra diversion and other acts."

source: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_03.htm

his new job? Director of the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office

Elliot Abrams

"On October 7, 1991, Abrams pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress. Abrams admitted that he withheld from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in October 1986 his knowledge of North's contra-assistance activities. In support of his guilty plea, Abrams admitted that it was his belief ``that disclosure of Lt. Col. North's activities in the resupply of the Contras would jeopardize final enactment'' of a $100 million appropriation pending in Congress at the time of his testimony.3 He also admitted that he withheld from HPSCI information that he had solicited $10 million in aid for the contras from the Sultan of Brunei."

source: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_25.htm

His new job? Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs

fun fact: I know his daughter

John Negroponte

John Negroponte was ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985. As such he supported and carried out a US-sponsored policy of violations to human rights and international law. Among other things he supervised the creation of the El Aguacate air base, where the US trained Nicaraguan Contras during the 1980's. The base was used as a secret detention and torture center, in August 2001 excavations at the base discovered the first of the corpses of the 185 people, including two Americans, who are thought to have been killed and buried at this base.

His new job? United States Representative to the United Nations


"Maybe to clarify, I'm not referring to ex-politicos who are now in the media. I'm specifically focusing on official party interaction; either currently elected or speaking at offical events like the conventions. Ollie North, for example, has never spoken at the RNC."

I'll assume people working in highly esteemed yet unelected positions in the gov't are also viable. They are after all well respected in their party.

"I think we are still on point here. In fact, I agree with you about Guliani; scandal, withdrawl from public life, then back to life. But, I think this is 100% the result of 9-11. No 9-11, do you think Guliani would be a keynote speaker at the RNC? But I'll still give that to you. That's one. "

One? Did you forget about Stromy boy?

and i'm 99 percent positive Guiliani will be a key note speaker. I remember reading that i think in the Wallstreet Journal...i'm sure i read it (if he's not i'll enter myself into an asylum) and i'm sure it was from a reputable news source.

The whole basis of this question seems flawed to me. Almost as if its unanswerable. The political parties aren't monochromatic in terms of their values and priorities across the United States, the inequity that causes one politician to fall permanently in one part of the country is not seen so harshly in another so that same misdeed may only be a setback for a politician there. Democrats in different regions may very well have different priorities then Democrats in another and judge their politicians accordingly, each could have very different results in response to the same scandal.

So are Democrats more forgiving? Are Republicans more principled? Hell if I know, however both parties sure seem to do pretty damn well for themselves recovering from scandals.

I don't think that one can honestly compare the misdeeds of Clinton to those of Nixon. The question that Clinton answered dishonestly was one that I really didn't want the answer to. However, the things that Nixon did specifically betrayed the public trust and were probably criminal, and more serious than perjury. Also he resigned, an implication that he was guilty of what he was accused of.

That being said, the media reported many times on Al Gore's distancing himself from Clinton during the 2000 election. I can't recall if Clinton spoke at that convention or not.

Assuming that your hypothesis is true, one might suppose that Republicans, campaigning on Christian values and morality, must distance themselves from those in their party who have publicly been immoral. While Democrats, who rarely allude to personal morality, feel less need to. It's the hypocrite factor.