> What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people?

For the record, he didn't say anything horrible about poor people. What he said was:

> There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49... he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. … My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5–10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.

He simply stated the facts: there's nothing he can do to win over a certain fraction of the electorate without compromising his principles; thus there's no point focusing on it; thus he needs to spend his time as a candidate focusing on those who he can win over without compromising his principles.

He did say bad stuff about poor people though. He incorrectly assumed that 47% of the US population will never take personal responsibility.

When you're taped stating that you are not even going to try to help 47% of the population because of a stereotype I think that people have a valid point to be upset about.

>He incorrectly assumed that 47% of the US population will never take personal responsibility.

How do you know that he was incorrect?

15 years ago, I met a videographer who told me a story about a job he was involved in in filming some internal meeting of the Libertarian Party in America. I realize it's hearsay, and I have no way to verify my statement, but I also have no reason to disbelieve him, given what I know of of human nature and his character in general (as much as I knew him).

Basically, his story was the upper leadership were caught on tape making comments about how the rank and file of Libertarians were essentially manipulated fools to prevent them from disrupting the power of the Republican Party. That is the gist of his story, as best I can remember. I have some sympathy for libertarian principles, and conservative ones, and liberal ones, so I am not an ideologue. This incident is entirely possible, given what I understand of human nature and how society/politics actually operates.

I agree with Gawker being repugnant etc; the story seems essentially salacious and its fundamental purpose was to drive website traffic. Are sex scandals that important, in the big picture? Only when they involve national security or other such public interest issues - e.g. General David Petraeus and his carelessness. Where is the line where exposing hypocrisy is in the public interest versus the essential rights of a person?

The thoughts of a politician running for office ARE in the public interest because that person is campaigning to be elected to be a decision maker in the country.

Video of people having sex may be something the public is interested in, but it is not in the public interest. It's none of the public's business and the public should find more interesting things to be interested in.

Hogan has considered running for office multiple times, including saying he wants to be Trump's running mate[1]. Why should we distinguish between a powerful, famous businessman and actor and a politician? Anyone powerful and famous should be a public figure on the same footing.

1. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/29/hulk-hogan-i...

And how does video of Hogan nailing someone let you know how he would perform as a public official?

Many people believe that violating your marriage vows is an indicator that you wouldn't be a trustworthy public official.

> What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people? That was a private video, probably made illegally.

And Romney had the right to sue.He didn't what you're point ?