|
|
|
Jewish World Review Dec. 21, 2007 / 12 Teves 5768 That's their story, and that's that By Wesley Pruden
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Nothing sets tongues wagging like tales of illicit sex, unless you're a candidate for president of the United States. That's when inquiries tie your tongue. This may be Bubba's only enduring legacy.
When a network cutie poses the questions to the Republican candidates, who collect wives like Elizabeth Taylor collects diamonds and husbands, the squirming is interesting to watch.
With little more than two weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, we're getting down to the really serious stuff. With no clear front-runner in either party, we've dispensed with the trivia of Iraq, immigration and health care, and moved on to the really important issues. Hillary's brother-in-law is behind in his alimony and child-support payments, Barack Obama felt insulted when Bob Kerrey, who likes Hillary, observed that "Barack Hussein Obama" would be particularly suited to reach out to the billions of Muslims in the world. Mitt Romney is still smarting over questions about his Mormon underwear. Mike Huckabee offended atheists and other Scrooges with his observation that Christmas is about the birth of Christ, and John McCain is pleading with the editors of the New York Times to spike an unflattering story about the senator and a lobbyist.
We all need a little something to relieve stress, so why not a little something about sex? Katie Couric of CBS News, in her quest to learn "what makes them tick," cited Harry S. Truman's stern judgment as justification for her question about marital fidelity: "A man not honorable in his marital relations is usually not honorable in any other."
The proposition is arguable now, at least by a lot of married men, Democrat as well as Republican, but in Mr. Truman's day no man, preacher or politician, dared flaunt his mistresses. Preachers can take a measure of comfort that the question still has the power to make a politician blush. Mzz Couric attached her question to a lazy softball and floated it to the plate: "Some voters say they don't feel comfortable supporting someone who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand or appreciate their point of view?"
Hillary Clinton was first up to plate, as she certainly deserved to be. "It's a deeply personal matter that I take personally," she said. (Take that, Bubba.) But she can think of people who have "represented our country, led our country ... who might have some, ah, challenges in their personal life."
Rudy Giuliani, the fragile front-runner who's had more than his share of wives and woman trouble, took a moment to settle down in the batter's box. "Sure I can [understand voter concerns]. Absolutely. You know, they look at every single part of us. And the only, only thing, I can say to people is that I'm not perfect, you know? And I've made mistakes in my life. And — and that — not — not just in that area ... Sometimes I just repeat them and you — you try again. I mean you, you, ah, so, I have maybe a more generous view of human beings and a more generous view of life. I mean it comes from growing up as a Catholic. I mean, we're all sinners. We're all struggling. We're all trying hard. We ask for forgiveness, and then we try to improve ourselves again. And I've — relate to other people that way. Relate to the world that way."
John Edwards, the smooth-talking trial lawyer, could have been speaking for the roster (and probably for most American voters) with his observation that marital fidelity is an appropriate gauge of character, but not the only one. "I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness — sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And certainly [marital fidelity] goes to a part of that. It's not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it."
Posing the question makes most people, guilty or not, squirm. But it's a fact of life, so to speak, that voters are entitled to judge a candidate — for governor, president or state land commissioner — by any criteria they choose. In Harry Truman's day the question would never have been asked. Adultery was no doubt as popular then as now, but the culture long ago discarded tact, taste and discretion, both public and private, to "let it all hang out." Now we're stuck with "all."
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here. JWR contributor Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.
© 2007 Wesley Pruden |
Mitch Albom | |||||||||||
