"But are they usually caught behaving in a manner contrary to their stated rhetoric? Do they usually fall harder because they attempt to prop themselves up on some high and mighty pedestal as if they're not subject to human nature?
If so, provide the list and examples of them campaigning against what they got caught doing." - JPW
I see this argument put forth quite often... Reps setting themselves up as the moral compass, etc.
And maybe what I'm about to say doesn't rise to your anticipated level of proof, but here goes:
Dems, throughout the years... have advocated any number of over-arching and/or specific initiatives. Setting aside any moral 'problems' for a moment, though there are many over the years. From "helping the poor" to "education" to "gay rights" , etc, Dems have advocated any number of things which, they claim, will be good for those involved. Would you agree thus far?
I don't know how many trillions of dollars have been spent helping "the poor." And where do we stand today?
What of the status of the black nucular (a little Dubya lingo) family? Has 40+ years of "vote for Dems because we'll help you" really helped blacks? How so?
The list goes on and on. Have Dems done much of anything regarding gay "rights"? Is our education system, a longtime Dem pet project, in better shape?
I could go on. The bottom line is that both the Rep and Dem party, as a whole, put themselves out there as "representing" certain segments of society.
We can look at the results and draw our own conclusions, pro or con, as to how not only a party has fared... but also how a certain individual has fared, whether by judging their votes and the outcomes or their personal actions vs their stated "beliefs."
Is one (rhetoric vs voting and results... or rhetoric vs their private life) necessarily better or more credible than another? If so, how?
I could say, for instance, that I support kids. Under that umbrella, as long as my "motives" are right, I could say, do, or vote for things which could be detrimental. Do you see what I mean?