Secrets and Lies;
What should we know about the candidates?
There was once a school of thought that said that public officials had to be above reproach. Candidates’ lives were open books, since they had nothing to hide.
Almost no one has believed that since the age of black and white movies. We now know that Hoover was probably gay and might have been a cross dresser; even if he wasn’t, his attack on civil rights groups and close friendship with Joseph McCarthy make him a freak of nature. We’re pretty sure Marilyn gave JKF a furry muff for his birthday, and we all know about Bill Clinton’s special massage. For awhile it looked like the Republican party and the Catholic Church were having a contest to see who could grab more young boys. A study in 2004 showed that virtually everyone has some deviant behavior in their private lives (so don’t feel alone); indeed, if there were a person with absolutely no arrests and no secrets, he would be such a freak we normal deviants should fear to have him in government.
J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson; inseparable. Stolen from the FBI
Happy Birthday Mr. President… MM had to be sewn into her dress, she wore
nothing underneath. She made more men salute during "Happy Birthday"
than the Marine Band did during "Hail to the Chief".
Further, there is a limit beyond which the private lives of our politicians should be their own business. We don’t have the right to know everything about our public servants, just those things that impact how they’ll perform for the taxpayers.
In Sierra County, being openly gay will probably prevent a candidate from being elected; being gay is not illegal. Being guilty of some obscure infraction of income tax law probably wouldn’t keep anyone from being elected to a non-money position.
You know whoinsky. Monica went on to live large after
Clinton, who was reduced from president to being
Mr. Hillary Clinton. Sometimes, life is fair.
The nature of the crime, and our distaste for it, has a lot to do with how it will effect the election. Eating just a little bit of a neighbor is worse than receiving a stolen car, even if the neighbor was gone when you found them. Still, shifting stolen cars might tell us more about a candidate’s performance in office than their peculiar gustatory preferences.
What do we have the right to know about? Should we know about bankruptcy, in this day? Should we know about arrests which never went to court? Does being a long dry alcoholic make one more or less qualified to sit on a DUI case? Does a series of bad decisions right out of high school count?
Do we allow people to grow and change from their experiences, or has the presence of the "permanent record" done away with the belief in salvation?
There is dirt circulating about several of our current candidates; we’ll assume there is uncirculated dirt on the rest. Is this dirt what the office is about?
We tend to think not, but at the same time we have a responsibility to inform our readers if we know something significant.
In the meantime, what do you think we need to know about candidates?
Send your opinion to: email@example.com