Those who help make people into politicians, seem to all work the same way. They adopt the 'messiah principle'. They think that having their candidate appear squeaky clean, whiter than white, will make them more likely to be accepted by the people. So if, at some point, something from their past comes out, something they didn't want anyone to know about, there's a terrible need to do something about it or cover it up. They have no choice but feel like this, because if they don't, this 'bombshell' will always make people doubt, and nobody wants to engender doubt in the people you want votes from. If you build someone up to be something they can never live up to, the longer this stays in place, the more devastating it seems when something comes out. And the more incentive there is for others to expose it. Why keep the past hidden? Anyone running for office has to have had a past. Isn't having a past, and learning from it, something that makes you more able to do the job in the first place? Do we really want our leaders to be Christ-like saviours apparently delivering us from all our troubles? If the experiences of the past were not hidden, but revealed for not only what they were, but how they changed things, people would get to see a real person, from the beginning. We all have stuff in our past. What matters is how we dealt with it. By letting people feel they can connect with whomever is standing before them, is something the people really need to experience. And they're far more likely to do so if they feel someone is being honest and transparent, not someone they're being fooled into believing is. If the candidate is open and honest about who they are and what they've done, from the get-go, the people will trust what it is they should be there to do . . . . . . be a true representative of the people. Anything else is bullshit.
i see your point - jeremy kyle was gambling/drug addict and for some reason people still respect him.