It’s been an agonizingly painful wait for President Bush to do something that will leave even a small degree of positive residue on his legacy, but at last he’s taken a high road. Faced with an Olympian’s bikini’d behind waiting for a slap, he back flicked instead.
Good for him, I say–but too little too late. In retrospect, I’m still pleased with myself for not voting for him, although that’s basically no consolation, overall.
It appears that John Edwards hasn’t exercised similar restraint in recent times, very unfortunately. However, his moral digression does not necessarily mean he would not have deserved my vote, had he stayed in the Democratic primary race long enough to get it.
“Really?” you might ask. “You might have voted for an adulterous person?” It’s a good question, and it brings to mind an article I once wrote for my hometown’s newspaper. It was a “dig up some news to write about” piece, an interview with an Anabaptist minister opposed to Bush’s policies following the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center attacks.
The pastor commented that whereas President Clinton had lacked a strong sense of personal ethics (can you believe that the Lewinsky mess was already ten years ago?) but possessed strong corporate ethics, President Bush, while having strong personal ethics, lacked a strong sense of corporate ethics. (The pastor, a recovering alcoholic, also said that Bush still exemplified behaviors of addicts, namely refusing to accept reality or admit he’s wrong.)
If I had the choice to make, I think I would much prefer a politician who can make wise decisions for the nation in spite of his or her personal weaknesses over one who totally screws up everything but keeps his or her personal life in order.