Why is it political leaders are held to a lower level of acountability?

[airdweller 0]

Lets use the current presidential race for example. It seems to me that when one of the candidates is questioned about a certain action they took in a situation, the typical response from there supporter seems to not answer the the allegation but rather attack the other candidate instead.

Examples:

allegation
Bush lied to the American public about WMD
typical response
Well Clinton lied under oath

allegation
Kerry's war record
typical response
Bush didn't show up for his duty.

It's like Kerry did this, well Bush did this and vice versa.

It just seems that there is so much negativity in the process to the point that people are choosing the less evil of the candidate. If the focus was on the positive aspects of the candidate, the mind set of the voter might be to choose not the lesser of two evils, but rather the greater of two good candidates.

P.S. sorry to ramble on

------------------------------------------------------
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns

[larsrulz 0]

When a country is based on a two-party system, then it becomes necessary for many people to vote for the "lesser of two evils." Either you have to vote for one of the two chosen ones or you waste your vote.

I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF

[Nightingale 0]

I wouldn't say that they're held to a lower level of accountibility...

does anyone care what John Doe's war record was? or if he lied when he was asked if he cheated on his wife?

[airdweller 0]

It seems that a lot of people do care about those issues.
Yea the "lower level of accountability" could have been put better, but I was having a hard time expressing what I wanted to say in one sentence for the title of the post.

------------------------------------------------------
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns

[juanesky 0]

What some people care about (in particular anyone with military service) is that in Kerry's case he has crossed a line with helping the enemy win a war, not only that, he has been commended by them, even though many made the ultimate sacrifice when they were called up for duty well as I see it, it can be categorized as treason.

For some reason this is being overlooked, as well as the type of character one person has to have to become president, that person has to show he will not side with the enemy. This nation has enemies willing to disrupt the very pillars of this society.

The president's job is not to keep others happy, but do what is right to protect and defend the constitution, the institutions and the nation as a whole. Mind you his job is NOT to keep other nations happy, but to protect his.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Botellines 0]

I don´t get why Kerry has incurred in treason or how he has helped the enemy. Can you explain it to me?
Do you think GWB is doing a good job at protecting your country?

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

What some people care about (in particular anyone with military service) is that in Kerry's case he has crossed a line with helping the enemy win a war,

Kerry's service record in Vietnam, detestable.

Quote

not only that, he has been commended by them,

Kerry being 'honored' by them - come on now, it's not as though he could stop them. Hell, I could honor you for being the Grand Wizard of the KKK if I wanted to.

I'm not a Kerry supporter by any means, but this whole being honored by the Vietnamese thing is just silly.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.