You raise a serious issue here, for current and all would-be politicians.
Re: "Yes, the timing of the story appears to be 100 percent political. You and I evidently are in agreement on that point. However, this story is a "no story" had GWB come clean on his past.
The question this raises, of course, is what else did GWB not tell us about his past?"
-- The last part of your question concerns me most. One ought to consider that question in context. Bill Clinton is the first President in recent American history who has refused to have his medical records released to the American public. There has been rampant speculation about drug abuse and repeated courses of treatment. But the media and the public have laid off, respecting the President's increased claim of personal privacy. No longer would Jimmy Carter's hemorrhoids be the butt of cocktail banter. What should a politician be required to disclose about his past, and what is private? If something is public record, it doesn't matter. But how much of Bush's, or anyone else's private matters, ought to be disclosed voluntarily, given the increased standard of privacy set by Clinton?
Based upon Clinton's standard, it's none of yours or anybody else's da**** business. Does a double standard apply for Republicans? |
