This Umair article smacks of partisanship.
Morality and ethics all depend on which side of the political line one lies. If the people on my side of the line do bad things, their actions should be condoned. But if the other side does it, let’s use all the morality we can muster to take them down.
Mr. Trump somehow believed that when he became president, all criticisms of the position would stop. How naive!
When this Congresswoman decided to run for public office, should she not have assumed her private life would become public? Her political enemies would use her “lack of morals” to defeat her. If she didn’t want her private life to be public, she should not have run for public office. She too is naive for believing it would not happen.
Then we get into the morals of whether we should get into the private affairs of our elected politicians. Sorry, this voter cannot be convinced to ignore the addictions of our leaders just because they are private affairs. I find it very difficult to believe that someone who is thinking “when and where is my next piece of tail” while playing brinksmanship with cold war adversaries in a possible nuclear war is the best person for that job. If the people aspiring to be elected officials have obvious flaws, they should be exposed for voters to judge.
Mr. Trump had many obvious flaws before he entered politics. In this way, he is a very honest politician. Americans elected him anyways — and the USA is getting exactly what it had seen. There are no surprises!
But to expose the flaws of a Democrat? This article wants to blame the culture that exposes her, not blame her for making bad life choices. And yet, the same writer wants to blame Mr. Trump and his voters. Well, all I can say is she made a choice to stand for public office. If she had stood aside, maybe someone more capable would have taken on the job — and not gotten into this controversy.