Classical Values :: 2 things in 24 hours isn't bad

November 21, 2007

2 things in 24 hours isn't bad

I've seen two new things in the past 24 hours that I like about Rudy Giuliani.

I especially liked what he said today in defense of Barack Obama's admission of past drug use:

"I made some bad decisions that I've written about, there were times when I got into drinking and experimented with drugs.. there was a whole stretch of time when i didn't really apply myself a lot," Obama told the group.

Giuliani said he believes Obama's topic of conversation was completely appropriate.

"I respect his honesty in doing that. I think that one of the things we need from our people who are running for office is not this pretense of perfection," Giuliani said. "The reality is all of us that run for public office, whether its governor, legislator, mayor, president-we are all human beings. If we haven't made mistakes don't vote for us cause we got some big ones that are gonna happen in the future and we wont know how to handle them."

Damn right. People talk about "hypocrisy" a lot, but if there's one thing that really is hypocrisy, it's this idea that you're supposed to lie about your past. For "the children."

I've never had kids, so perhaps I'm the one who's not getting it, but what kind of parenting is it to lie to your children about something they're likely to discover about you anyway? If you took drugs in the past, and you don't want your kids to take drugs, isn't it better to tell them about it so that maybe they'll learn from your mistakes?

I think so, and I strongly disagree with the Romney approach:

But fellow Republican contender Mitt Romney feels differently, saying Obama committed a "huge error."

"It's just not a good idea for people running for President of the United States who potentially could be the role model for a lot of people to talk about their personal failings while they were kids because it opens the doorway to other kids thinking, 'well I can do that too and become President of the United States,'" Romney told an Iowa audience today. "I think that was a huge error by Barack Obama...it is just the wrong way for people who want to be the leader of the free world."

Does that means Romney thinks leaders of the free world should lie about their past? Or does he believe in a "don't ask, don't tell" policy? Or might it be that he thinks having been anything less than squeaky clean should be a disqualification from office?

Sorry, but I don't trust people who think that way. It should not be forgotten that one of America's worst traitors was FBI counterintelligence chief Robert Hannsen, and a man more obsessed with being squeaky-clean would have been hard to find. (And I know it's anecdotal, but one of the most unbearably perfect men I ever knew turned out to be far from perfect. He might be out of prison by now.) Call me a cynical ex druggie, but I trust a guy who's made mistakes and tells you what he's done, as opposed to Mr. Perfect.

The other thing I like about Giuliani was an offhand remark I read by a young voter in a post Glenn Reynolds linked yesterday at Politico by a freshman at Dartmouth college who "registered Republican on a whim":

Should Giuliani lose the GOP nomination, however, Lim says it's unlikely he'll vote for another Republican.

Hardly the Republican base.

But precisely the type of voter the Republicans will need in order to win.

The GOP better be careful not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

posted by Eric on 11.21.07 at 04:54 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5813

Comments

With regard to Giuliani's evaluation of Obama's admission of imperfection, I concur. But the matter is part of a wider political subject. Consider the following, which is part of the historical record:

"My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank...in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." (Abraham Lincoln, upon announcing his first candidacy for office in 1832)

Note that Lincoln said absolutely nothing about any other candidate. Nor, if the record be trustworthy, did he ever address any opponent's personal life or characteristics. He confined himself to issues alone.

You don't have to admire Lincoln's stands on the issues -- and some of them are definitely not admirable -- to admire the decency and restraint his rhetoric exemplifies. We could use that now. Indeed, if a presidential candidate were to make a reliable promise that he'd confine his public statements to the issues as Lincoln did, I might enlist in his campaign without bothering to look at his positions!

That's the depth of the decency deficit in American politics in the year of Our Lord 2007.

Francis W. Porretto · November 22, 2007 05:51 AM