« Osama's Navy? | Main | Clark to Endorse Kerry »
Captain's Quarters has moved! Be sure to bookmark or blogroll the new site!
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Not This Again!
Matt Drudge reports this morning that a new bimbo eruption is coming, and that John Kerry is the target. I'm not bothering to excerpt this story; if you're interested, click the link. Unless this story involves harassment, I'm not interested at all.
I feel that John Kerry is a terrible choice for President. I think that marital infidelity shows a lack of moral fiber. But I don't feel that the two are related, nor should they be. It's faux-scandals like this that make it difficult to find people to serve in the public arena. Marital infidelity without illegal behavior is an issue between the Senator, his wife, and God. If being without sin will be a minimum requirement for President, I'd like to see that slate of candidates.
What, then, is the difference between John Kerry and Bill Clinton? Plenty. For one thing, Clinton and his supporters turned businesses into witch hunts with poorly-defined sexual harassment laws and policies, making his trysting with an intern in the White House extremely hypocritical. For another, the transparent attempt to buy her silence with a Revlon job arranged by Clinton's close adviser Vernon Jordan paralleled the Webster Hubbell case, and was pursued as a pattern of obstructing justice. Finally, regardless of the advisability of forcing Clinton to testify on this issue, he committed perjury. Had Clinton had the sense to cheat with someone outside of his office and avoid paying her off to keep quiet, none of the impeachment business would have occurred.
I've seen just enough of the details to see that none of this applies to Kerry, and anyone who pursues this as an election strategy will find themselves covered in the muck almost as much as Kerry, including Drudge and any other news sources. It's silly, it's pointless, and it will only serve to generate sympathy for Kerry in the long run. (See Bill Clinton and Gary Hart.) Let's bury this garbage and focus on the issues.
UPDATE: Going around the Northern Alliance as much as I can, I see that Saint Paul at Fraters Libertas agrees with my assessment, but Hindrocket at Power Line thinks that it will have some effect on the race, at least initially, perhaps boosting John Edwards. I think it would be more likely to boost Howard Dean, who has a better national organization and has performed better than Edwards in the past few primaries. More later as I get to their blogs ...
Now that you have read this post, read the most recent entries at the new Captain's Quarters at http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/!
11:35 AM in Presidential Election | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83455934069e200e5506e52e48833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Not This Again!:
Comments
I agree, although I didn't think that Clinton's dallying was worth an impeachment, either. There seems to be something about men who crave power that walks hand-in-hand with womanizing. I'm not saying this is a given, I'm just saying that this seems to be a time-honored "tradition" and that I would also rather people focused on the issues. For the record, I'll vote for Mickey Mouse if he's running against Bush, and I think Kerry is better than Mickey Mouse, although I would have rather had Kucinich. See? You and I were separated at birth. :-)
Posted by: Haddayr at Feb 12, 2004 12:27:48 PM
Haddayr, in that you are younger and better looking than I am, I will take that as a compliment to me, or evidence of a brief period of low self-esteem for you. :-)
I think that people who are drawn to positions of power as a rule tend to be self-centered and self-focused, and people who cheat as a habit tend to be the same way. It's not terribly surprising, then, when these "scandals" arise in politics. I don't condone it and think less of the men and women involved, but it's hardly a disqualifying event to me.
Posted by: Captain Ed at Feb 12, 2004 12:40:18 PM
In general, I agree with the captain, especially in the sense that often these kinds of domestic or personal transgressions are discussed at the expense of the person's ability to serve publicly. And, the correlation between personal piety and public effectiveness is not necessarily that strong, c.f., Jimmy Carter.
However, I must demur at the captain's formulation of "If being without sin will be a minimum requirement for President, I'd like to see that slate of candidates." The requirement -- if it is one -- isn't being "without sin" -- it's being without MAJOR sin. The captain's formulation lazily elides the difference between whether a person is "perfect" -- never loses temper, never has spats with spouse, never forgets a birthday, etc., and the person who manages the not unheard of feat of keeping their marriage vows. Speaking as a female it would be nice if the major parties could field 4 grown-ups who have practiced marital fidelity. Hey, I've got it! The parties should nominate all females! :)
(Actually, I'm pretty sure with Bush we've got at least one candidate who keeps his marriage vows, no problem.)
My other point which reinforces the captain's general skepticism: apparently the story Drudge is referring to comes via Wesley Clark via Chris Lehane. *Highly* dubious sourcing.
Posted by: Judith at Feb 12, 2004 1:19:02 PM
Hello! found your blog by way of Venomous Kate...
Excellent!
Posted by: Sharon Ferguson at Feb 12, 2004 2:03:36 PM
Ouch, Judith! The Captain -- lazy??? [The First Mate concurs, though, and wishes the Captain would clean up his $%^*& office like he keeps promising.] Of course, you're right, and as a good Catholic boy I should have acknowledged the difference between mortal and venial sin, seeing as how I invoked the term.
I'd like to think that we could get 4 viable candidates who don't cheat on their wives, too, and we probably could if we made marital fidelity the primary requirement for the job. (Or, more likely, we'd get four guys who are really good about hiding it.)
Of course, Haddayr's choice (Kucinich) isn't married at all, so perhaps he IS the perfect candidate!
And Sharon, welcome to Captain's Quarters, and thanks for the kind words!
Posted by: Captain Ed at Feb 12, 2004 2:10:32 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, Ed. If a man's own wife can't trust him how can the American people?
Posted by: Joe Carter at Feb 12, 2004 3:30:33 PM
I think it will hurt Kerry with swing voters. Theyll look at it like, "Hell, we don't need something like this again."
Posted by: Jimbo at Feb 12, 2004 4:17:47 PM
Ed, Given the lengths a politician (especially President or aspiring) will go to cover up a sexual indiscretion...
And given this is our first Presidential election after 9/11 and we are being asked to fire the commander in chief for Kerry
What role does possible blackmail play in terms of this topic. That was ALWAYS the biggest concern I had with Clinton, who only argued the sex was not a big deal AFTER the truth came out but before flatly denied the charge, accused the intern (stalker) and did everything to coverup.
I remember thinking "what if our enemies found a way to intercept some of those phone calls"..
again..this was pre 9/11
I think trust in wartime will be a major issue with the independent voter. Clinton's infidelity almost cost him in 1992 (thanks 60 Minutes) and certainly hurt Gore in 2000.
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona at Feb 12, 2004 8:47:12 PM
