Dear Shadow Minister and Stern,

I elect politicians to affect matters of
policy that affect me and my family.
It's the decisions that they make around
policies, regulations and laws that affect
me and my family that I am concerned with
the most.

Things like how faithful a politician is to
his or her spouse or how they conduct themselves
in their private life is of no concern to me.
To you both it seems that how a person conducts
themselves in their private life reveals their
character and that to you is of paramount
importance when it comes in choosing a leader.
You prefer to sit on a moral high horse and
pass moral judgement on other people without
knowing the full circumstances or context
or any other considerations of what's involved.
Fair enough. You're not alone - it seems that there
are many who are more than willing to pass moral
judgements on others.

Some people love to delve into politicians past
and personal private lives. This makes it easy for
politicians to avoid issues of real importance by
selling "us" an image of the perfect family man and
so on.
It doesn't matter whether the image is in fact true
or how really pristine their past is, as in the case
of Tony Abbott. What matters to me is that this so
called image of "character" does not usually
address the issues that affect me and my family.

Character is doing what's right when nobody is
looking. Leadership is being the most effective
in all situations. And the leader who is able to
win a consensus on the required course of action
is the one who will get my vote.

Foxy,

Considering we have Andrew Johns suspended from his show because of a sex romp nearly a decade earlier, and a footy player suspended because his column was deemed offensive to gays, it would appear that one's conduct off the "field" is certainly not off limits.

While you expound the virtues of leadership, obviously you feel that trust and honesty don't rank so highly.

In the highest office in the land, trust worthiness is rare commodity of which Julia is in short supply.

runner, "For (some of) those who champion feminism it is impossible for Julia to do wrong."

There, I fixed it for you. It would be a mistake to confuse the selfish, materialistic, career-focussed feminism endemic in academia, the public bureaucracies and politics with what most women believe to be feminism.

It goes without saying that the shrillest feminist mouths in the media represent the privileged, 'I'm alright, Jill, but I wanna a new Beamer' middle class, not the general population. Women are far more diverse and have far more diverse interests and expectations than the career-oriented feminists would ever accept (and for obvious reasons).

ok swinging voters you need look no further than this thread to make up your minds.
Gizzard? look at shadow ministers posts how can anyone think those rambling thoughts are changing voting intentions?
It comes down to this, just bet your last dollar it will be safe some who pillory Julia have had much more interesting sex lives than her.
Sex like it or not is not never will be out of fashion and drives each of us some times before throwing stones ask am I in position to do this?

Dear Shadow Minister,

So far you've been concentrating on the
"character" of our PM.

What about the "character" of the other
contender for PM, Tony Abbott?
Is his past so pristine? And what does that
say about his "character?"

Isn't there a double standard at play in
your judgements?

You seem not to see that your opinion is also
a confession of your character.

Personally I feel that if you meet life
honestly and courageously, that's how
character is built.

As far as politicians go, the key is we
don't know who they really are. Instead we
trust them to be who we want them to be.
And when they're not - we vote them out.

Foxy “I elect politicians to affect matters of
policy that affect me and my family.”

I do too

I prefer to elect those with a demonstrated referral to

their character

Because I figure, the people (gender does not matter) who respect the institutions which were valued and defended, by our fore-fathers are the folk who see beyond their own personal “gratification of the moment”

and the folk who see dalliances with married folk as acceptable are

Placing momentary gratification before that respect.

Would you rather your child be taught by a libertine or a nun?

Would you rather be treated by a doctor who has been a stable member of the community or one who is known to consider female patients fair-game?

So why would you see no difference in electing someone who has a strong moral character (albeit we might not agree with all of it) and some who is a fornicator?

“It's the decisions that they make around
policies, regulations and laws that affect
me and my family that I am concerned with
the most.”

But those decisions are influenced by the values and strength of their moral character

“Things like how faithful a politician is to
his or her spouse or how they conduct themselves
in their private life is of no concern to me.”

Well It should be a concern… leopards and spots…… expect public decisions to reflect private values

“You prefer to sit on a moral high horse …
….. any other considerations of what's involved”

Yes because I have grown to understand how private values are reflected in public behavior, values and the quality of decisions taken.

“the leader who is able to
win a consensus on the required course of action
is the one who will get my vote.”

I recall another female politician’s comments

“consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.”

That explains a socialists preference…

no beliefs, principles, values or policies required