🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2932@jeff.mdavcr.mda.ca> randy@mdavcr.mda.ca (Randy Armstrong) writes:
>what I can't figure out is why the marital fidelity of presidential hopefuls
>in the US is such an issue. Very few people would argue that Winston 
>Churchill was a bad leader unfortunately he was also one of the worst debauchers
>of his time. If someone has vision and knows how to lead a country then
>everything else is (and should be) irrelevant. It is unfortunate that the
>media insists on reducing things down to the lowest common denominater.   
>

And don't forget Opposition Research on the various parties.  Mary
Matalin's little fax was a bit of a descent to the depths, so to
speak.

In <1992Aug7.173716.27190@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>In article <2932@jeff.mdavcr.mda.ca> randy@mdavcr.mda.ca (Randy Armstrong) writes:
>>what I can't figure out is why the marital fidelity of presidential hopefuls
>>in the US is such an issue. Very few people would argue that Winston 
>>Churchill was a bad leader unfortunately he was also one of the worst debauchers
>>of his time. If someone has vision and knows how to lead a country then
>>everything else is (and should be) irrelevant. It is unfortunate that the
>>media insists on reducing things down to the lowest common denominater.   
>>

>And don't forget Opposition Research on the various parties.  Mary
>Matalin's little fax was a bit of a descent to the depths, so to
>speak.

One of the things you have to look for, since the press seems to find it
unimportant is that fact that Betsey Wright, Mary Matalin's counterpart
in the Clinton campaign, was the one who actually said that her
opposition research group was spending altogether to much time fending
off "bimbo eruptions". Mary Matalin simply quoted it. Bush apologized for
it, and I am waiting and wondering if the Clinton campaign will follow
suit.

Personally, I find the term offensive and degrading to women, as well as
men, and I comdemn the Clinton campaign for using it in the first place, and
the Bush campaign for quoting it.

-- 
Denis Hancock, Research Specialist              1-314-882-1722 (voice)		
dhancock@teosinte.agron.missouri.edu -or- agrohanc@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia MO 65211 USA
"Computeri non cogitant, ergo non sunt"

In article <2932@jeff.mdavcr.mda.ca>, randy@mdavcr.mda.ca (Randy Armstrong) writes...
>what I can't figure out is why the marital fidelity of presidential hopefuls
>in the US is such an issue. Very few people would argue that Winston 
>Churchill was a bad leader unfortunately he was also one of the worst debauchers



You're forgetting that in Britain, the Royal Family takes the heat
in that area. The U.S. has no royal family, but there's the same
public appetite for scandal...the conclusion follows, inescapably.

In article <8AUG199207264630@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov>, packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes...
>You're forgetting that in Britain, the Royal Family takes the heat



..And now that I think of it, it's only recently that the Royal Family
has been available for this kind of duty. Before that there certainly
were sex scandals in the British government similar to those in the U.S.
There was one in the Thatcher era that forced the resignation of one
of her aides, if I recall. There was a (homo)sex scandal in the 1970s,
and there was the famous Profumo/Keeler affair in the 1960s.

In article <8AUG199207264630@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov>, packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes...
>You're forgetting that in Britain, the Royal Family takes the heat

I thought we used people like Trump as our Royal Family.
Perhaps the Rich and Famous on a rotating basis?

In article <2932@jeff.mdavcr.mda.ca> randy@mdavcr.mda.ca (Randy Armstrong) writes:
>what I can't figure out is why the marital fidelity of presidential hopefuls
>in the US is such an issue. Very few people would argue that Winston 
>Churchill was a bad leader unfortunately he was also one of the worst debauchers
>of his time. If someone has vision and knows how to lead a country then
>everything else is (and should be) irrelevant. It is unfortunate that the
>media insists on reducing things down to the lowest common denominater.   

And the Brits dumped old Winnie with unseemly haste as soon as the war
was over. The populace will tolerate debauchery in wartime much more
readily than in peacetime.

More to the point, however, countries rarely need "leaders". What they
need for a CEO is a competent *manager* who is honest and trustworthy.
Policy should be set by the board of directors after through debate.
What the US desparately needs is a new board of directors (Congress).
It's long past time that the concept of the man on the white horse, 
the *leader*, was put on the scrap heap of history. We've had our fill
of Hitlers, Stalins, Mussolinis, Perots, FDRs, and Churchills this century.

Gary