A call to my legions of readers! After spying this Slate piece I thought of a question which I think might elicit some interesting answers from you all. Considering Rudy's horrfic personal life story in which he marries his cousin, gets an annulment (or a Catholic divorce as we sometimes say), marries again, admits to cheating on second wife, divorces said second wife from a press conference (calling her a 'whiny stuck-pig'), marries third wife and abandons children, and considering Rudy's predilection for women's clothing, my question is: If you were a political operative working for Hilary or Barack, would you attack Rudy's personal life in speeches, ads, etc... and smear him with his own personal immorality? Or, on the contrary, do you subscribe to the notion that one's personal life has no bearing on one's fitness or lack thereof to be president? If you would attack him, how would you go about it so as to not offend those Americans who think a man's personal life isn't any of the public's business? If you wouldn't attack him on these issues....why not?! They're gold! Or are we trying to practice a new kind of politics? But think of what those ads would do to potential Republican Giuliani supporters in the Mid-West, the Bible belt, and how it would effect his ability to get out the evangelical vote. Could you really not use this stuff?
5 comments:
If you're Barack or Clinton, why do anything at all? The other Republicans in the primaries are going to smear this crap all over the place. The voting public's reaction to the "info" during the primary will set the stage for whether it can/should be used during the election next year.
Anyone who wants to raise the level of discourse is simply asking to lose. Moreover, I've come to believe that his treatment of his wives (and his very shady financial dealings) is something properly considered in electing a president; you run for president, you open your entire life up to inspection. That's the reality of our world today; that's the price you pay for the right to be the leader of the yada yada yada. If you don't like it, don't run.
Greer, I would think the current state of 'smearing' during political campaigns is at a point where campaign operatives and the campaigners themselves don't need to do any of the smearing. Your legions of blog readers learn about Giuliani's transgressions through you, other bloggers and eventually (hopefully) through the at-large press.
Candidates can put counter-spin on accusations made against them, but as far as casting the first stone, they should let the people discover the truth through the build-up of interest in the press. You're a part of that build-up. Bravo!
Strategically-speaking, I wonder how much, and at what point in the campaign, party-line cohesion forms amongst the candidates insofar as the lesser candidates using themselves as a platform for 'bringing to light' the transgressions of the competition.
I mean, who doesn't picture Kucinich with a cocked bowler hat, a cigarette hanging from his lip, a flashbulb camera around his neck and a notepad full of chicken scratch as he rakes-up the muck and brings a pearl of smeardom to light?
I don't, it's unfair to the lad; even though bowler hats are fun. But, no, to answer my own question, subsections of the press should deal with personal intrigue of the candidates. For their part, the candidates can refer the people to the press to find the facts on their opponents.
I agree with Ben. Not only are you asking to be on display and your story told by running for political office - the subsequent presentation and story that comes out matter.
Personal life and privacy are delicate things and they should be protected appropriately. But if our culture and nation believe that they are untouchable, then they do not matter. And if the core of a person that is determined by what they do "in private", also known as "character," is not valid in assessing people, then we are on a slippery slope.
We have laws (though not necessarily perfect nor perfectly enforced) to protect against aspects of a person that should bare no weight in there ability to function in a particular role.
But, when you can not bring personal history into question you also begin to say "I do not care about you." We have developed a mentality of indifference.
On the surface it looks like tolerance and not caring about a persons past, because we accept them as they are, but when does that just turn into simply not caring about the person at all?
Good points all of you. But would you make the same argument in 1998 when "it tastes good" Clinton was exposed to be an adulterer? Let's expand the discussion and ask whether or not it's appropriate for the press, not just imaginary political operatives of the Democratic party, to explore the seedier side of a candidate's personal history. Ben says an investigation of a candidate's personal history is "just how it is". I agree, but SHOULD it be that way? Or should we be trying to reduce the LEVEL of scrutiny that lead to, for instance, Clinton's impeachment?
Secondly, do these pecadilloes even matter anymore? Witness W's evasion of the National Guard service and his cocaine use. No one cared! Maybe for all the Republican hand-wringing, Giuliani's indiscretions are, practically speaking, irrelevant. We'll get a good idea of his behavior's potential volatility in the upcoming primaries no doubt.
Post a Comment