🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug15.014816.26727@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.114954.16393@dg-rtp.dg.com>, grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross writes...
>>In article <STEINMAN.92Aug4084513@hawk.is.morgan.com> steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman) writes:
>>>I just heard a report this morning that Bush soundly rebuked his
>>>campaign manager for writing a press release that made references to
>>>Clinton's "bimbos". Also, my spouse just returned from UK, where she
>>>said the press is full of stories about Bush's womanizing in the past.
>>>
>>Actually, there is no accounting for the British tabloid press.  Those
>>people thrive on innuendo and rumor.
>> 
> I was wondering, just what does this have to do with whether a canidate
> would make a good president or not? This isn't sarcastic, or a jab. Just
> an honest question. Personally, I would rather a president get his "rocks
> off" over a woman than over the power of his position (no pun intended).
> 
> Garrett@Ingres.com

	I think a lot of people would agree with you in that most are
interested in the quality of leadership provided and not the side-show
activities of personal life.

	But I think this misses the main point.  Why has the press had
free reign to bludgeon Gary Hart, Clinton and others with stories of
their picadillos but seems to just now be coming out of its strait
jacket with respect to GHWB?