Entry: Do Kerry's Morals Even Matter? Thursday, February 12, 2004



Matt Drudge, the internet muck-raking journalist who became famous by breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal, may be repeating history today.  On his web site, the Drudge Report, Drudge posted a story alleging an affair between John Kerry and -- what else? -- an intern.

In 1988, Gary Hart's Presidential bid was derailed because of a similar scandal.  News of an affair between Hart, then the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, and Rice, an actress and model, was broken by the Miami Herald.  Within days, the disgraced Senator from Colorado withdrew from the race.

Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was revealed a decade later -- the latest of a long string of allegations of misconduct by the former President.  He was so vigorously defended by Democrats that he was never removed from office after being impeached for lying under oath before a Federal Grand Jury.  He was only the second President to suffer impeachment.  (And if you thought of Andrew Johnson just now instead of Richard Nixon, you earn extra points.  Nixon at least had the grace and respect for the office of President to resign.)

All the history lessons aside, this story -- assuming its veracity, which I'm sure we'll discover in the coming days -- forms a fairly telling "litmus test" for Democrats.  

Should John Kerry be elected to the Presidency, he'll have to swear a vow to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  When John Kerry (who claims to be a Catholic despite his views on abortion and gay "marriage" -- that is to say, about half of the time) married Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz, he undoubtedly spoke a vow to remain faithful to her. 

Leaving all the religious implications and imprecations involving marriage aside, can a person who would break one solemn promise be trusted to keep another?  Will the Democrats continue to support Kerry as they did Clinton, or will they drop him like a hot potato, as they did Hart?  How Democrats react to this story -- if it turns out to be true -- will tell us all we need to know about whether morals even matter to them anymore.

Personally, I expect we already know the answer.  They'll stand behind anyone they think has a chance to beat President Bush, morality be damned.
   10 comments

Jeff Stark
February 12, 2004   09:56 PM PST
 
As always, great job. They will drop him though. If the Clintons think he has ANY chance of being elected he is done. They can't risk a Dem winning if Hilary is to run in '08. That has many asking if she may just show up at the Dem Nat Conv to "rescue them from the darkness". You may never know. But this I think you can bet the farm on. The Clintons are behind it. They even had their little pawn (Clark) out there to do the dirty work.
JM
February 12, 2004   10:34 PM PST
 
Thanks! Clark is supposed to openly back Kerry tomorrow. This whole thing really does stink of manipulation, but it really feels like an internal Democratic thing. Anyone who thinks Clark REALLY "accidentally" leaked word of this to a bunch of big-media reporters, ask me about the Brooklyn Bridge... I can sell it to you cheap.
JonJ
February 13, 2004   03:35 AM PST
 
In all fairness to Andrew Johnson, he should not have been impeached. He was impeached for violating a law Congress had recently passed that was a clear violation of the seperation of powers. In fact they had passed the law over his veto in hopes that he would ignore it, giving them the chance to impeach him. The law said that the president couldn't fire a member of his cabinet without approval from congress.

However I do agree with you on everything else, especially the last paragraph.
jamie g
February 13, 2004   09:00 AM PST
 
I agree with all thats been said. And I also think that the Clinton's don't want anyone running that they think has a chance of winning. But here is another thought - this also could be a way to slip Hillary in to "save the day" for the party. If she thinks that there is a possibility of defeating Bush, she wants to be the one to run against him THIS year. I seriously doubt that Hillary would run with Kerry as VP on the ticket (as Dick Morris is running around telling everyone). Hillary wants the top job - and being VP is not high-profile enough for her. That's almost "as bad as being First Lady".

I heard something funny the other day - that Bill Clinton wants to keep himself visible because he aspires to someday be appointed as a Supreme Court Justice! Is that not a hoot! The man lied to a Grand Jury (which IS illegal, right?) and was impeached and had his license for practicing law stripped from him.... but you never know - if Hillary were to be elected, anything goes!
JM
February 13, 2004   09:13 AM PST
 
If Bush looks vulnerable in July, I can see Hillary sweeping in to "save" the party. And frankly, I wouldn't put it past him to do so deliberately, then crush her in November. When Dems call him stupid, I laugh. He's always been strongest when he looks weakest.
Kerry Dupont
February 13, 2004   11:47 AM PST
 
Hey, have you seen the UK Telegraph on the Clark camp's "answer" to the allegations that he told a dozen reporters "Kerry will implode from an intern issue."
Very Clintonian in nature:
Bill Buck, the national press secretary for the Clark campaign, said: "We do not respond to Right-wing internet postings in any way, shape or form."
In other words, we can't deny saying that because it would be lying or else we'd flat out deny that we said it. I'm not saying this was Clinton motivated, could have just been Clark motivated (David Frum has an interesting take on that today) but either way, the speak is pure Clintonian.
As far as your post considering morality, I have to say that I have always been in the minority on this one, even among conservatives, it is an accepted part of the power of politics, but I completely agree with you. If you are still lying and cheating in your 50's and 60's you are very unlikely to change your stripes, no matter who you are making grave promises to.
JM
February 13, 2004   12:04 PM PST
 
I don't know, Kerry... Clark's answer probably depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Dammit, man... did you say it or not?
Living in the real world, I accept that there are times a politician has to reverse his position, or flat out break a promise. (One reason I'd make a terrible politician.) But there are promises, and there are VOWS.
Kerry Dupont
February 13, 2004   12:22 PM PST
 
Lileks has an interesting take on this today as well. I can say that I had the exact same response to the interviews Kerry conducted 30 some years ago with regards to Bush's alcholism of the same time period. He could have changed his foreign policy views, but nothing reflects that he has.
As far as Lileks take on fidelity, I think what he means is that it doesn't SURPRISE him, not that it doesn't bother him (from what he says) if there was one affair at one time. He goes on to make a point about serial philanderers though, and though it isn't the same as ours, it is another good one. National Security. Focus. Especially now.
Jeff Stark
February 13, 2004   05:36 PM PST
 
jamie, I heard Clinton wants the U.N. Either way, a joke nonetheless. Of course the U.N. has proven itself useless, but imagine if Hilary is Pres and he is Sec. Gen. We would be in a HUGE mess then.
JM
February 13, 2004   08:26 PM PST
 
Thanks, Jeff. I'll have nightmares for a week now. :)

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments