This just seems like a really alien view of US politics. It is just not the case that voters are only interested in having a representative who votes the right way on some set of issues. Voters want representatives who represent them. And this isn't entirely crazy - part of the reason we have representatives at all rather than just doing everything by direct democracy is that the voters aren't supposed to be qualified to come to the right decision on many issues and are instead supposed to appoint people whose judgment they trust and whose values they agree with to make those decisions for them. Hypocritical or otherwise insincere politicians break the system - they take the positions they take so as to signal to voters that they're the right sort of person, but aren't actually guided by these values in making decisions that the voters aren't micromanaging. Or, worse, they might actually be abusing voters' trust to win support for things that the voters really wouldn't support, absent trusted authority figures telling them it's consistent with their values. You can argue that the voters are too easily outraged by minor bits of wrongdoing, but this is a pretty serious wrong in itself and the hypocrisy is especially problematic given the importance of "family values" to the voters.
But you're right that "this isn't an Eich situation". Here it's actually smart to make this guy the poster boy for the anti- SSM movement and to emphasize how judge-y of other people's personal lives the "family values" stuff is.
I don't think he abused any trust. I think he didn't live up to his promises which is vastly different. This isn't as I've said doing one thing and saying another (I'll get to the family values part later). this isn't lying for political gain to mislead voters (That CNN report isn't something I'm going to take at face value considering when its coming out). This isn't Larry Craig or a criminal action.
And if the voters did think he did and disagree with me, then come November they will make that know. And I like I've said before just don't see the hypocrisy, is all sex stuff now related?
He had a personal failing. The hand wringing by democrats about the mismatch of family values and his actions screams concern trolling or attempting to put your "family values" and substitute them for his and the voters of the 5th district. Also, why do we have any say? We aren't his constituents. Let his voters speak as they did in the Randal situation
And I disagree that this is a good thing to help the gay marriage push. The campaign on Eich was for his views on gay people and gay marriage. There was a clear link to why that action was pushed he actively was aiding a proposition which was hurting gay couples. There is no link to gay marriage here. He would be pressured to resign not because his biogted views on LGBT Americans but because he cheated on his wife. I don't think pressuring people to resign because of a tangentially related thing is anything other than just a bitter, opportunistic and cynical attack. And will probably put a worse person in the seat. IMO.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but the equal pay stuff really seems like nothing more than playing politics. To make matters worse the White House has multiple cases of men and women not making the same amount. Every negotiation is different, and I feel like a lot of the equal pay discussion doesn't take experience into account.
What are your views on maternity leave and how it impacts pay, poli-gaf? I'm just curious, I'm not taking a position.
The bolded is you just taking GOP talking points and concern trolling.
And I think its absolutely justified to take experience into account when talking about pay. But employers hide behind that and aren't actually taking that into account and just using it to dock pay because they employee doesn't have a very good legal recourse since there are a lot of loopholes in the Equal Pay Act. This bill helps close them.
Why wouldn't they pass this bill? Why does the GOP block it. Ask yourself why would they do such a thing if it didn't hurt their interests.
And I'm not sure of your last question. Maternity leave should be mandatory and so should paternity. Fathers have every right to spend time with their child free from fear they will lose their job.
