Breaking: Mayor Tory Steps Down.

[GameBoy27]

Since this thread has morphed into a highway/road discussion, I'll add my 2 cents worth. I think it would be a traffic nightmare if you took down the Gardiner east of Jarvis and made it into a large boulevard with traffic lights. The DVP southbound currently has one lane exiting to Eastern/Richmond, two lanes continue onto the Gardiner westbound and one lane exiting to Lakeshore Blvd. Forcing DVP southbound traffic onto the Lakeshore to stop at traffic lights would create a huge backlog. Don't forget the Lakeshore currently carries east/west traffic.

While that section of highway may not be the most attractive thing to look at, it's efficient and moves a lot of traffic. The last thing you want to do is force more cars and trucks to sit idling which only does one thing, creates more pollution. The other thing people fail to realize, is every time they make changes to roadways that reduce the flow of traffic, you also slow down public transit, delivery and emergency vehicles.

It's also bothers me when I hear people tell others to get out of their cars and walk, ride a bike, take public transit. It's a free country and people are allowed to choose whatever form of transportation they like. Cycling as a main form of transportation is impractical in Toronto for all but a few people. Public transit is often unreliable and unless you've got a stop next to your house and one close to your destination, it often takes much longer than driving. I could take public transit to my business but when I factor in walking time plus 3 different busses, it takes 45 minutes by transit vs. 15 minutes to drive. I love the comfort of my car. Crank up the tunes, switch on the aircon in the summer or the heat in the winter and no crazy, drug addicted or homeless people to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I love to cycle but not when the weather is crappy.

Anyway, that's my little rant for the day.

 

[Anbarandy]

Since this thread has morphed into a highway/road discussion, I'll add my 2 cents worth. I think it would be a traffic nightmare if you took down the Gardiner east of Jarvis and made it into a large boulevard with traffic lights. The DVP southbound currently has one lane exiting to Eastern/Richmond, two lanes continue onto the Gardiner westbound and one lane exiting to Lakeshore Blvd. Forcing DVP southbound traffic onto the Lakeshore to stop at traffic lights would create a huge backlog. Don't forget the Lakeshore currently carries east/west traffic.

While that section of highway may not be the most attractive thing to look at, it's efficient and moves a lot of traffic. The last thing you want to do is force more cars and trucks to sit idling which only does one thing, creates more pollution. The other thing people fail to realize, is every time they make changes to roadways that reduce the flow of traffic, you also slow down public transit, delivery and emergency vehicles.

It's also bothers me when I hear people tell others to get out of their cars and walk, ride a bike, take public transit. It's a free country and people are allowed to choose whatever form of transportation they like. Cycling as a main form of transportation is impractical in Toronto for all but a few people. Public transit is often unreliable and unless you've got a stop next to your house and one close to your destination, it often takes much longer than driving. I could take public transit to my business but when I factor in walking time plus 3 different busses, it takes 45 minutes by transit vs. 15 minutes to drive. I love the comfort of my car. Crank up the tunes, switch on the aircon in the summer or the heat in the winter and no crazy, drug addicted or homeless people to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I love to cycle but not when the weather is crappy.

Anyway, that's my little rant for the day.

Thank John Tory and his inner suburban car-centric councilors for the ongoing current debacle, that being moving that stretch of the Gardiner a few meters to the north, that you have described.

 

[GameBoy27]

Thank John Tory and his inner suburban car-centric councilors for the ongoing current debacle, that being moving that stretch of the Gardiner a few meters to the north, that you have described.

Not sure what you mean by moving the Gardiner a few meters to the north.

I'm also not sure how you can say Tory was "car-centric." The amount of roads that have been reduced from 4 lanes to 2 for the installation of bike lanes during his term is substantial.

 

[Anbarandy]

Not sure what you mean by moving the Gardiner a few meters to the north.

I'm also not sure how you can say Tory was "car-centric." The amount of roads that have been reduced from 4 lanes to 2 for the installation of bike lanes during his term is substantial.

Tory and his inner suburban councilors hired the Acme Elevated Expressway Moving Company to pick up and move the eastern stretch of the Gardiner a few meters to the north.

Just how much runway do u need? Ur not driving a jumbo jet on the roadways I hope?

 

[explorerzip]

Since this thread has morphed into a highway/road discussion, I'll add my 2 cents worth. I think it would be a traffic nightmare if you took down the Gardiner east of Jarvis and made it into a large boulevard with traffic lights. The DVP southbound currently has one lane exiting to Eastern/Richmond, two lanes continue onto the Gardiner westbound and one lane exiting to Lakeshore Blvd. Forcing DVP southbound traffic onto the Lakeshore to stop at traffic lights would create a huge backlog. Don't forget the Lakeshore currently carries east/west traffic.

While that section of highway may not be the most attractive thing to look at, it's efficient and moves a lot of traffic. The last thing you want to do is force more cars and trucks to sit idling which only does one thing, creates more pollution. The other thing people fail to realize, is every time they make changes to roadways that reduce the flow of traffic, you also slow down public transit, delivery and emergency vehicles.

It's also bothers me when I hear people tell others to get out of their cars and walk, ride a bike, take public transit. It's a free country and people are allowed to choose whatever form of transportation they like. Cycling as a main form of transportation is impractical in Toronto for all but a few people. Public transit is often unreliable and unless you've got a stop next to your house and one close to your destination, it often takes much longer than driving. I could take public transit to my business but when I factor in walking time plus 3 different busses, it takes 45 minutes by transit vs. 15 minutes to drive. I love the comfort of my car. Crank up the tunes, switch on the aircon in the summer or the heat in the winter and no crazy, drug addicted or homeless people to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I love to cycle but not when the weather is crappy.

Anyway, that's my little rant for the day.

A highway / road discussion is very relevant to Tory's legacy because he campaigned on it. He championed the so-called hybrid option where that part of the highway is going to be moved closer to the rail corridor. Something has to be done with the highway so it's going to cause traffic disruptions regardless.

How about using numbers and data to inform decisions vs casual observations. It's super easy to find that info for yourself.

The TTC has definitely become more unreliable and unsafe as the years have gone by. It's been on a death spiral for a long time. Is the solution to stop investing, cutting service and making it worse? Or do we upgrade the system by rebuilding stations, acquiring vehicles and maintenance, automation, platform doors to prevent people from being pushed, etc.

 

[Darts]

Don't tell anybody but I hear the current interim mayor is consulting with the former real mayor. So, the former real mayor might still have some influence on city politics or at least the interim mayor.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Don't tell anybody but I hear the current interim mayor is consulting with the former real mayor. So, the former real mayor might still have some influence on city politics or at least the interim mayor.

Doesn't matter all that much. The interim mayor doesn't have the strong mayor powers.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Thank John Tory and his inner suburban car-centric councilors for the ongoing current debacle, that being moving that stretch of the Gardiner a few meters to the north, that you have described.

Not one driver would describe Tory as car-centric.

 

[chrispalen]

Not one driver would describe Tory as car-centric.

Tory is young pussy centric. He likes to put his stick shift into it and drive hard when his free Viagra takes effect.
Hope they elect a better person than him as mayor. Mark Saunder could be good, as former police chief and MBA from York.

CP

 

[Dutch Oven]

Tory is young pussy centric. He likes to put his stick shift into it and drive hard when his free Viagra takes effect.
Hope they elect a better person than him as mayor. Mark Saunder could be good, as former police chief and MBA from York.

CP

I also "hope" that Toronto will elect a better mayor. However, no one better has stepped forward so far. Saunders was a pretty crappy police chief. I wouldn't expect him to be an exceptional mayor. He would know nothing about developing business in Toronto, or balancing a budget, or even the proper balance between public finance and policing spending. I'm not sure if he will turn out to be the best of a bad batch, but he'd definitely be even worse than Tory, just in different ways.

If you meant "better person" as "more moral person", you'll have to explain why that's so important to you in your daily life as a citizen of this berg. I assume that every politician is less than perfectly moral. I'll settle for competent. I want someone who can solve at least one problem during his term of office. That alone would distinguish that mayor.

As for as Tory getting some young tail at his age, I'd find it surprising that anyone on TERB would take umbrage with that!

 

[squeezer]

I also "hope" that Toronto will elect a better mayor. However, no one better has stepped forward so far. Saunders was a pretty crappy police chief. I wouldn't expect him to be an exceptional mayor. He would know nothing about developing business in Toronto, or balancing a budget, or even the proper balance between public finance and policing spending. I'm not sure if he will turn out to be the best of a bad batch, but he'd definitely be even worse than Tory, just in different ways.

If you meant "better person" as "more moral person", you'll have to explain why that's so important to you in your daily life as a citizen of this berg. I assume that every politician is less than perfectly moral. I'll settle for competent. I want someone who can solve at least one problem during his term of office. That alone would distinguish that mayor.

As for as Tory getting some young tail at his age, I'd find it surprising that anyone on TERB would take umbrage with that!

Dammit , this is a post I do not entirely disagree with DAMMIT FUCK SHIT!!!

Now if you will excuse me I will go take a shower with bleach and disenfectant.

 

[Frankfooter]

A highway / road discussion is very relevant to Tory's legacy because he campaigned on it. He championed the so-called hybrid option where that part of the highway is going to be moved closer to the rail corridor. Something has to be done with the highway so it's going to cause traffic disruptions regardless.

How about using numbers and data to inform decisions vs casual observations. It's super easy to find that info for yourself.

The TTC has definitely become more unreliable and unsafe as the years have gone by. It's been on a death spiral for a long time. Is the solution to stop investing, cutting service and making it worse? Or do we upgrade the system by rebuilding stations, acquiring vehicles and maintenance, automation, platform doors to prevent people from being pushed, etc.

Tory owns the Gardiner decision and the Fast Track plan, combined with the big TTC cuts in his final budget.

All leaders want the big development package as their legacy, Miller had transit city (the best of the bunch), crackhead a $2 billion subway station in the burbs and now Tory gives us the back of the napkin Fast Track, which doesn't connect to the crackhead's brother's TTC plan. None of them gave any money for maintenance and security so the city will get decades more construction on poorly planned routes combined with declining and increasingly unsafe service that will soon rival uber rates.

The Gardiner is another bad legacy.

 

[explorerzip]

Tory owns the Gardiner decision and the Fast Track plan, combined with the big TTC cuts in his final budget.

All leaders want the big development package as their legacy, Miller had transit city (the best of the bunch), crackhead a $2 billion subway station in the burbs and now Tory gives us the back of the napkin Fast Track, which doesn't connect to the crackhead's brother's TTC plan. None of them gave any money for maintenance and security so the city will get decades more construction on poorly planned routes combined with declining and increasingly unsafe service that will soon rival uber rates.

The Gardiner is another bad legacy.

Wasn't it called No Track or Dumb Track or something like that? Who knows what the status of that project now that he's gone. I remember that the idea was to place some of the stations in between adjacent GO stations. So we'll see if those Smart Track stations actually see the light of day. We'll also never know what could have been had we completed the Transit City network. Even if it went through, Metrolinx would have screwed it up just like they're doing on the Crosstown.

The litmus test will be how the Crosstown does if and when it actually opens. At least it does not intersect with other streetcar lines so the trams won't need to slow down to a crawl when they move through the intersection. That's a big weakness of the existing streetcar routes as is the need for loops.

 

[Anbarandy]

Wasn't it called No Track or Dumb Track or something like that? Who knows what the status of that project now that he's gone. I remember that the idea was to place some of the stations in between adjacent GO stations. So we'll see if those Smart Track stations actually see the light of day. We'll also never know what could have been had we completed the Transit City network. Even if it went through, Metrolinx would have screwed it up just like they're doing on the Crosstown.

The litmus test will be how the Crosstown does if and when it actually opens. At least it does not intersect with other streetcar lines so the trams won't need to slow down to a crawl when they move through the intersection. That's a big weakness of the existing streetcar routes as is the need for loops.

It was christened as worse than NO or DUMB Track. John Tory gleefully yet deceitfully went before the cameras far and wide, across the 4 corners of Toronto and beyond and proclaimed for all the realm to hear:

"I hereby proclaim, SMARTtrack as the solution to all of your infirmities, ailments, sores and boils! SMARTtrack, let it be said, let it be written, let me christen thee, SMARTtrack! Mendelbaum, Mendelbaum, Mendelbaum!"

Our very own Butler+or-1000, jump onto this choo-choo train fantasy like a sugar overdosed child. Alas poor Butler, this "lines drawn in colored crayon on a greasy spoon napkin" planwas nothing but a fantasmic scam by Tory and Co. to dangle baubles in front of a duped electorate during his first mayoral election campaign.

From the 24 or so planned stations and stops on Tory's SMARTtrack napkin, only a few remained to be usurped by that boffo provincial transit planning authority, Metrolinx.

 

[chrispalen]

I also "hope" that Toronto will elect a better mayor. However, no one better has stepped forward so far. Saunders was a pretty crappy police chief. I wouldn't expect him to be an exceptional mayor. He would know nothing about developing business in Toronto, or balancing a budget, or even the proper balance between public finance and policing spending. I'm not sure if he will turn out to be the best of a bad batch, but he'd definitely be even worse than Tory, just in different ways.

If you meant "better person" as "more moral person", you'll have to explain why that's so important to you in your daily life as a citizen of this berg. I assume that every politician is less than perfectly moral. I'll settle for competent. I want someone who can solve at least one problem during his term of office. That alone would distinguish that mayor.

As for as Tory getting some young tail at his age, I'd find it surprising that anyone on TERB would take umbrage with that!

Terbites here are paying for their service. Yet, Tory is taking advantage of his position, using tax payer $$ to travel out of town to fuck a young subordinate less than
half of his age, and you find it acceptable???? Wake up.

CP

 

[Dutch Oven]

Terbites here are paying for their service. Yet, Tory is taking advantage of his position, using tax payer $$ to travel out of town to fuck a young subordinate less than
half of his age, and you find it acceptable???? Wake up.

CP

I'd love to join the dogpile on Tory as much as the next guy, but your thinking is just not clear about the issues.

1. You don't know that Tory's travel expenses (or hers) weren't justified in the normal course of business. If they were, they didn't rob the public purse. As I said in another post, I think nearly all of these international junkets are of little worth to Toronto taxpayers, but they are par for the course for ALL mayors. It certainly looks like her presence was at least justified based on her job. You don't know that Tory claimed condoms, or roofies, or Viagra, or whatever else he bought to seal the deal on the public dime. By inviting an ethics inquiry, I think Tory is pretty confident that no financial wrongdoing is going to be found. I think he's right.

2. Old guys getting young tail? Do I find that acceptable? I certainly do - and I think the TERB sentiment on this point would be overwhelmingly in agreement with me! Do I care if the old guy and young tail bothwork for the city? Not in the least, unless the old guy coerced her into it, or they ACTUALLY wasted tax dollars for the specific purpose of their tryst, or there is a conflict of interest that results from their relationship. Outrage over infidelity? Please, this is TERB!

3. We were paying Tory's salary and hers, but they were not on the clock 24/7. We weren't paying Tory to fuck his wife either, but he probably did that on some other junket if we go back far enough.

You don't like Tory. I more than understand that. You want to see a better mayor. Ditto. But don't you hate him over his policies and sanctimonious manner, rather than for who he sleeps with? You might need to wake up to understanding the real reasons why you are joining this dogpile.

No matter how many times I wake up, I'll never wake up confusing these things.

 

[curr3n_c1000]

1. You don't know that Tory's travel expenses (or hers) weren't justified in the normal course of business. If they were, they didn't rob the public purse. As I said in another post, I think nearly all of these international junkets are of little worth to Toronto taxpayers, but they are par for the course for ALL mayors. It certainly looks like her presence was at least justified based on her job. You don't know that Tory claimed condoms, or roofies, or Viagara, or whatever else he bought to seal the deal on the public dime. By inviting an ethics inquiry, I think Tory is pretty confident that no financial wrongdoing is going to be found. I think he's right.

Why should tax-payers even have to question this? He has no integrity.

2. Old guys getting young tail? Do I find that acceptable? I certainly do - and I think the TERB sentiment on this point would be overwhelmingly in agreement with me! Do I care if the old guy and young tail bothwork for the city? Not in the least, unless the old guy coerced her into it, or they ACTUALLY wasted tax dollars for the specific purpose of their tryst, or there is a conflict of interest that results from their relationship. Outrage over infidelity? Please, this is TERB!

It's not just his affair. It's about the positions people held. As a Mayer of one of the biggest cities in the world, his ethics should be higher.

I don't remember him campaigning on running a whorehouse.

3. We were paying Tory's salary and hers, but they were not on the clock 24/7. We weren't paying Tory to fuck his wife either, but he probably did that on some other junket if we go back far enough.

Sorry, but if Tory is needed at 1am, he can't say "Sorry, I'm banging my secretary. I'll see you at 9:30am."

He's on the clock and must act appropriate 24/7. He's not some part-timer at a grocery store.

You don't like Tory.

You love Tory. You wish it was you caught in the scandal with him.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Why should tax-payers even have to question this? He has no integrity.

Taxpayers need to be honest with themselves, or they will continue to elect disappointing representatives. Did Tory waste taxpayer money on tail? It doesn't appear so. Does he nevertheless fail to meet your definition of integrity just because he chased young tail? Maybe, but good luck finding a politician who has truly pristine character, and double good luck finding one that can actually get the job done in ways that are much more meaningful - like managing the budget properly, creating a good environment for business development and employment, maintaining public order, and maintaining civilized living conditions for residents!

It's not just his affair. It's about the positions people held. As a Mayer of one of the biggest cities in the world, his ethics should be higher.

I don't know how to respond to this other than to say there is neither law nor logic underpinning your position. There is no law preventing important people from fucking their subordinates. There is law against using their power to coerce subordinates into it. It's this law that makes it risky to screw around with underlings, because you might find it hard to defend an allegation against you by an unscrupulous or bitter piece of tail. However, taking legal risks makes you careless, not amoral. I am amused by your proposition that the bigger the city, the more moral the mayor must be, considering that the opposite is far more likely to be true.

Sorry, but if Tory is needed at 1am, he can't say "Sorry, I'm banging my secretary. I'll see you at 9:30am."

Nor could he fail to respond to an emergency if he was banging his wife, so what's your point? Fact is, no one is saying he neglected his actual duties because he was banging his youngish tail. He wasn't banging his wife at the time, so banging wasn't occupying an unusual amount of his time.

He's on the clock and must act appropriate 24/7. He's not some part-timer at a grocery store.

A mayor is on call 24/7, but he isn't "on the clock" 24/7. You misunderstand his obligations. He's allowed to vacation, visit his family, take yoga classes, and even hang out at jazz clubs!

You love Tory. You wish it was you caught in the scandal with him.

Given this statement, I can see you're having trouble accepting facts that contradict your feelings. I couldn't have been more clear in stating that I do not like Tory, and I think he was a crappy mayor. If you can't absorb that, I guess it's consistent that you can't absorb that Tory was neither guilty of finanicial misconduct, nor any rule prohibiting relationships with staff.

 

[curr3n_c1000]

Taxpayers need to be honest with themselves, or they will continue to elect disappointing representatives. Did Tory waste taxpayer money on tail? It doesn't appear so. Does he nevertheless fail to meet your definition of integrity just because he chased young tail? Maybe, but good luck finding a politician who has truly pristine character, and double good luck finding one that can actually get the job done in ways that are much more meaningful - like managing the budget properly, creating a good environment for business development and employment, maintaining public order, and maintaining civilized living conditions for residents!

No he needs to be honest and run a campaign on what he is going to do, Bang younger subordinates.

If this girl isn't getting special favours, how did she get a cushy MLSE job so conveniently before shit hit the fan? Are you going to tell me this is all coincidence?

I don't know how to respond to this other than to say there is neither law nor logic underpinning your position. There is no law preventing important people from fucking their subordinates. There is law against using their power to coerce subordinates into it. It's this law that makes it risky to screw around with underlings, because you might find it hard to defend an allegation against you by an unscrupulous or bitter piece of tail. However, taking legal risks makes you careless, not amoral. I am amused by your proposition that the bigger the city, the more moral the mayor must be, considering that the opposite is far more likely to be true.

There is no law, You shouldn't go to jail for cheating on your wife. Come on now.

That's why it is called ethics. It's how you conduct your business and how professional you are. This is severely lacking.

Nor could he fail to respond to an emergency if he was banging his wife, so what's your point? Fact is, no one is saying he neglected his actual duties because he was banging his youngish tail. He wasn't banging his wife at the time, so banging wasn't occupying an unusual amount of his time.

What do you mean? People have been critical of him for years, especially in covid.

Explain how he was social distancing while being with this young girl?

A mayor is on call 24/7, but he isn't "on the clock" 24/7. You misunderstand his obligations. He's allowed to vacation, visit his family, take yoga classes, and even hang out at jazz clubs!

And don't you forget that. He's allowed. His obligation while in office is to be Mayor 24/7 and hold himself to the highest standards.

He's not some plumber we call on emergency when we need things fixed.

Given this statement, I can see you're having trouble accepting facts that contradict your feelings. I couldn't have been more clear in stating that I do not like Tory, and I think he was a crappy mayor. If you can't absorb that, I guess it's consistent that you can't absorb that Tory was neither guilty of finanicial misconduct, nor any rule prohibiting relationships with staff.

You don't know that.

The facts you have to deal with is, He resigned.

He wasn't fired, Wasn't let go. He chose to leave. He chose to have a press conference before the detail even leaked to the public.

So he's guilty on his own account, but we all know if you want to kill an investigation just step down.

What you need to understand is this isn't a private business. He's done questionable things that shouldn't have happened and if you make a mistake, you gotta pay. It's only fair.

 

[Dutch Oven]

No he needs to be honest and run a campaign on what he is going to do, Bang younger subordinates.

How would he know he'd even get the chance? Are you suggesting that all political candidates submit to some "purity test" of your design before they can run for office? Sounds pretty Orwellian to me.

If this girl isn't getting special favours, how did she get a cushy MLSE job so conveniently before shit hit the fan? Are you going to tell me this is all coincidence?

Obviously, he helped her get the MLSE job, as I've already stated in this thread. Why do you think she doesn't deserve the job, and why do you care who works for a private company like MLSE? As to whether he helped her over there to try to avoid a scandal: 1) there isn't any information that he knew he would be outed (seems more likely that her gig was simply just up at the city, and it was time to find a new gig), 2) moving her certainly didn't slow the Red Star down one bit in exposing him, and 3) whatever pull he might have over at MLSE, I doubt it goes so far as using them as his pump n dump dumping ground. I'd bet the farm that she has whatever passes for credentials for the work she's doing over at MLSE. As I said before, don't hate the player, hate the game!

There is no law, You shouldn't go to jail for cheating on your wife. Come on now.

Not sure you're making any point here. The laws I was referring to were civil laws, not criminal - nothing to do with going to jail.

That's why it is called ethics. It's how you conduct your business and how professional you are. This is severely lacking.

There are no generally applicable business ethics relating to banging side thingees. Banging tail has nothing to do with the way you conduct business. It's certainly pretty common for CEO's to have side thingees, whether subordinate employees or otherwise. I think you're pushing for a world as you would wish it to be, but you're just imagining that there are some core "business ethics" which govern Tory's behaviour.

What do you mean? People have been critical of him for years, especially in covid.

Explain how he was social distancing while being with this young girl?

While you are obviously moving the goal posts, I think you have a reasonable point here. However, you must remember that people were allowed to have a small social circle of contacts inside their bubble, even at the height of Covid. Depending on when this tryst started, she might actually have been within Tory's small circle at the relevant time. (Not to be confused with defending Tory's Covid policy, or trying to claim that Tory wasn't just as hypocritical as most other power crazed political figures during Covid).

And don't you forget that. He's allowed. His obligation while in office is to be Mayor 24/7 and hold himself to the highest standards.

Are you not reading, or not understanding? You're simply wrong that a mayor is "on duty" 24/7. Some of his "off duty" behaviour might impair his ability to carry out his duties as mayor, but I'm not sure how covertly banging tail does that. You might have a point if he was championing some "fidelity law" while banging tail at the same time, but that wasn't one of his multitude of bad ideas.

He's not some plumber we call on emergency when we need things fixed.

You're right. Plumbers get a lot more useful work done than mayors and seldom tell others what to do.

You don't know that.

No, YOU don't know that. YOU are the one so sure of your moral/ethical/political condemnation.

The facts you have to deal with is, He resigned.

He wasn't fired, Wasn't let go. He chose to leave. He chose to have a press conference before the detail even leaked to the public.

So he's guilty on his own account, but we all know if you want to kill an investigation just step down.

He said he didn't live up to his own standards (whatever they might be). Fair enough. Step down if you feel you must. I think he's mostly trying to avoid getting divorced, whether he REALLY feels what he did was unjustified or not. Whatever, everybody needs to look after their business in the way they think best. However, just like a court can't accept a guilty plea if there was no crime even alleged, likewise a person who says "I didn't live up to my own standards" can hardly establish the code of ethics you think is generally applicable. I think he was just mouthing the kind of thing he needed in order to set the groundwork for keeping his marriage intact and/or maybe still having some future of some kind in politics again (its the kind of thing women voters like to hear).

What you need to understand is this isn't a private business. He's done questionable things that shouldn't have happened and if you make a mistake, you gotta pay. It's only fair.

What do you need to understand that politicians are not elected to be our moral examples? They are elected to get things done for the greater good of the population.