Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, August 23, 2006 06:28 AM

  Public vs Private; Clinton vs Bush

  A recent book discusses public and private hypocrisy. Basically, the author argues that public hypocrisy about private matters, i.e., sexual shenanigans, is not only palatable to the public, but almost expected, and, therefore, generally ignored.

  Mr. Clinton's private behavior had virtually no effect on the body politic, and things were going swimmingly--in comparison. So it is understandable why Dems might say one thing in Congressional cloakrooms but another on the floor.

  Mr. Bush's brush with hypocrisy is public--a totally different matter. It does affect the body politic, and things are definitely not going swimmingly.

  Mr. Scarborough's consistent stance for conservatism is laudable, but a little late. What, for instance, could have persuaded him the country would be better off with a failed businessman as its CEO? Other than a tax cut for people who didn't really need it.

  There were intimations of leadership problems back in 2000. Remember when there was a sigh of relief when Mr. Cheney was self-appointed as nominee for the Vice Presidency? There were comments about "adults" in the administration. Republicans dropped the ball in 2000, going for a malleable good ol' boy and a tax cut rather than an experienced politician.

  Welcome to my reality, Joe.

  —Gene Touchet Read Gene Touchet's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel