Conference turris::womannotes-v1

	Consider how much political fallout there would be if a woman
	running for president were caught in the same situation. The
	general reaction I'm seeing to Hart's indiscretion is that
	it's OK if he's having a little fun, his only mistake was in
	getting caught. After all, look at JFK! I suspect there would
	be much less tolerance if a woman candidate had a handsome
	young actor over to her townhouse for a weekend, went on an
	overnight cruise with him, etc...
	
	Mike

	That probably has to do with the image of show business people
	as fun-loving types, it gives more of the impression that Hart
	was "just" having a little fun rather than carrying on a
	serious affair, as would have seemed more likely if she were
	more politically active (remember "The Seduction of Joe
	Tynan"?).

	Mike

    
    ...leave the scandal-mongering to the PTL club?
    
    This whole thing seems pretty silly to me.  Why does it matter who
    Hart spent the weekend with, or for that matter, what he did with
    her?  Does this _really_ have an impact on how well the man can
    run the country?  Consider the following:
    
    Susan is a programmer/analyst.  She's been doing fine work in her
    position for a couple of years, and in fact, has been working at a Sr.
    programmer/analyst level for some time now.  So she campaigns for
    a promotion.  Her review is scheduled for the folowing week.  But...
    
    That weekend she spends the weekend _unchaperoned_ with Joe, a man
    who plays the piano at the bar on the corner...
    
    And on Monday, she hears, "We're not sure you're fit to be a Sr.
    programmer/analyst.  We hear you spent the whole weekend with Joe
    the piano man.  Now, maybe if it had been one of the principal
    programmer/analysts you work with, that would have been different..."
    
    Now what would you do if you were Susan?  Chances are, you'd run
    right to your nearest personnel rep and say, "What the H*ll does
    this have to do with whether I should be promoted or not?  What
    bearing does who I spend the weekend with have on how well I do
    my job??"  And I think most of us would be justifiably outraged
    if Susan was denied her promotion for that reason.
    
    Why do we treat politicians as different than the rest of us?  I
    grow very concerned that we are fast becoming a society which elects
    its leaders based on their image, rather than their ability to do
    the job.                                             
    
    Rita
    
    

    Susan's job permits her to have weekends off; Gary's job (actual
    and prospective) does not.
    
    Susan is not married; Gary is married.
    
    Susan does not claim to provide moral leadership for the entire
    country; Gary does.
    
    At the very least, Gary seems a bit shaky on common sense, low on
    judgement, and entirely ignorant of the basic concept of avoiding
    even the appearance of wrongdoing.  These are data points in the
    presidential selection process.
    
    But I still wish They'd stop talking about it.
    
    							Ann B.

    
    A moment of weakness on Susan's part will not mean the end of the
    world.  A moment of weakness of the part of a President might.
    
    I don't want to start a nuclear debate here.  I am trying to illustrate
    what I think the difference is.  Susan's position limits the amount
    of influence she will have on the lives of others.  The president
    does not have that luxury.
    
    DFW

    A Presidents wife has no life except for his.  She is expected to
    attend the dinners, have teas, attend openings, etc. and in general
    be a model of decorum.  I just couldn't handle knowing that while
    she can't let her slip show he is off having one night or weekend
    stands and people saying it doesn't effect how you run the country.
    Maybe I'm too hard on people but I tend to think if you are corrupt
    in one area of your life the other areas are suspect.  I think thats
    a very important area too.

    
    	I don't think it effects the way he runs the country, but how
    the country will react to his running the country....
    
    		Mike
    

re .4:

>    Susan's job permits her to have weekends off; Gary's job (actual
    and prospective) does not.

    This is a valid point.  However, was there some duty that Gary Hart
    neglected on that weekend?  If so, that is a valid criticism pertaining
    his job performance; otherwise, I think not.
    
>    Susan is not married; Gary is married.

    That is an assumption that you made.  Nowhere did I mention Susan's
    marital status.  Should it make a difference in terms of her promotion
    even if she is married?
    
>    Susan does not claim to provide moral leadership for the entire
    country; Gary does.

    Again, a valid point.  To spend a weekend unchaperoned with another
    person of the opposite sex does not, in my mind, constitute a moral
    violation.  Why do we automatically assume that such a weekend must
    mean that the parties involved did anything amoral?  Gary Hart claims
    he did not have sex with this woman; why is that so difficult to believe?

>    At the very least, Gary seems a bit shaky on common sense, low on
    judgement, and entirely ignorant of the basic concept of avoiding
    even the appearance of wrongdoing.  These are data points in the
    presidential selection process.

    This is precisely my point.  I believe we are judging candidates by
    wrong criteria.  Is image more important than the man's political
    record?  Should it be?

re .5

>    A moment of weakness on Susan's part will not mean the end of the
    world.  A moment of weakness of the part of a President might.

    Also true.  I do not, however, see that Mr Hart spending the weekend
    with a woman (and passing the time with her is all that we _know_ he did)
    makes him any more likely to press the button than, say, an aging movie
    actor.  I don't think his weekend activity tells us _anything_ about
    his foriegn policy, his stand on nuclear weapons, or much of anything
    else, for that matter.

                                                                  
	
re .6

>    A Presidents wife has no life except for his.  She is expected to
    attend the dinners, have teas, attend openings, etc. and in general
    be a model of decorum.  I just couldn't handle knowing that while
    she can't let her slip show he is off having one night or weekend
    stands and people saying it doesn't effect how you run the country.
    Maybe I'm too hard on people but I tend to think if you are corrupt
    in one area of your life the other areas are suspect.  

    I think that it is a shame that a president's wife has no life except
    for his.  No woman should be required to live through her husband. 
    It is a real pity that we expect this.  I wonder what we will do when/if
    we finally elect a candidate whose spouse (male or female) has a career
    of his/her own, or if we elect an unmarried president.

    I also see no hard evidence that Mr. Hart had a "one night stand" or
    that he is corrupt (adulterous) in this area of his life.  To assume
    that two people who are together and unchaperoned for a weekend _must_
    have had sex is a rather victorian attitude.                

    Also, I would like to point out that many other politicians, Richard
    Nixon, for example, have given the appearence of being pristine in their
    personal lives.   This did not stop them from being politically corrupt.
    Choosing a candidate based on how little dirt you can dig up on their
    personal lives does not guarantee that said candidate will be either
    uncorrupt or effective.

re .7
  
>  	I don't think it effects the way he runs the country, but how
    the country will react to his running the country....

    You hit the nail on the head, and I think it's a damn shame.
                           

Rita

Ps:  Gary Hart is not a candidate I would endorse, and it has nothing
to do with how he spends his weekends.

    

    
    	re .8
    
    	You think it is a shame, I hit the nail on the head, or
    	its a shame of how the country will respond to his running....
    
    
    Mike
    

    
    I think it's a shame how the country will respond to his
    running.  I _liked_ your analysis, nothing shameful in that
    (as far as I know..;-))
    
    Rita
    

I guess one could say that my initial reaction is essentially:

	"Gary Hart's personal life is none of my business."

However, I'm not quite ready to pass this off and forget about it.  Gary
has made a statement about the incident, denying immoral behavior.  What 
now becomes important to me is:

	"Is Gary lying?"

Truthfulness would be very important in the consideration of Susan's 
promotion in .3.  Presidential candidates?  I didn't know they lied until
after they were in office (just kidding -- I'm really not *that* cynical).  

Right now I'm undecided.  More bits and pieces of the story are certain to 
follow in the days to come.

.jim

	Well...my original intention in .0 *really was* only to point out
the idiotic assumption that "actress" and "politically minded" were mutually
exclusive...not to crank up a Hart/Rice exchange...but thanks for all the
replies; in particular I agree with .1 that there's obviously a double
standard, any woman candidate in the reverse position would have been
politically DOA ; and with the gist of several other replies, that overfocus
on our leader's private/personal lives will leave us only with leaders who
don't have any...scary. 

    I think the assumption that an actress cannot be politically minded
    is pretty stupid, yes, but I don't think it's limited to *female*
    thesbians; *ANY*one in the field of acting seems to be pooh-poohed
    when they start "talking political."  Ed Asner comes to mind...
     If you act, it seems you are not expected to be capable of thinking.
    
    And maybe the fact that Ronbo made it to the presidency is a testimony
    to his ability to overcome at least one stereotype.  And "dumb actor"
    is something used by liberals all the time in pointing out his obvious
    lack of qualifications for the job, so he still hasn't completely
    gotten away from it.  (BTW, I *still* think he is a rotten president,
    so these are not the ramblings of a "knee-jerk conservative" :))
    
    Lee

    I heard on the news this morning that Gary Hart is withdrawing from
    the race for the Democratic presidential nomination because the
    Washington Post (?) has uncovered some information about a longstanding
    affair that Hart has been having.  The Washington Post will not
    print the story now that Hart is resigning.

    	A person's sex life is and should remain personal even if the
    person is running for or residing in the White House.  However a
    person's word is a reflection of personal values.  Mr. Hart denied
    being a 'womanizer' and challenged the media to '...follow him
    around...'  He also denied he had changed his name and misstated
    his age.  Which of his statements, if any, are truthful?
    
    	Presidents Nixon and Reagan should have learned the best defense
    is the truth.  They did not.  Mr. Hart is one more person who failed
    to learn this lesson.  Why he did not simply say his love life is
    a matter between him and his wife PERIOD I'll never know. 
    
    	Would it be worse if a woman whe was running for higher office
    was a 'manizer'?  Not in my opinion.  Would it be as bad if the
    woman was shown to deny the truth as much?  Yes, remember 1984?
    
    
    Douglas

    True, none of *US* seemed to care about what Gary Hart does in his
    personal life.  (Maybe his wife doesn't either) but how come the
    government comes up with laws for *US*.....why is it illegal to
    live with the opposite sex if your not married, why is adultery
    illegal, etc.   It seems *THEY* care about what we do.
    
    Example:  Two police officers were fired from their jobs because
    they were living together without being married and also one of
    them was married but getting divorced.  How does that hurt the public?
    
    I guess I'm just confused.   ......
    
    bs

    Re: -1.  To my knowledge there is no Federal law declaring either
    adultery or co-habitation a crime.  In some states, adultery is still
    against the law.  Here in New Hampshire someone actually had his wife
    arrested for adultery recently - part of some nasty divorce bickering.
    The state legislature discussed removing the law but voted to keep it. 
    
    Whether adultery is against the law in Florida or D.C. I don't know.
    But last I heard, people in this country aren't guilty of a crime
    until they have been charged and tried and found guilty.
    
    That Gary Hart withdrew from his campaign because he was the issue
    instead of his ideas is true as far as it goes.  Behind that is
    the hard rock of reality: the people who finance these campaigns
    no longer saw his candidacy as viable.
    
    						- Dotsie

    re -1:
    
    I thought that the police officers were able to keep their jobs and
    that Mass. rescinded the cohabitation law as a result of the brouhaha.
    BTW, cohabitation is not disallowed in *most* states.  Less than
    10 or so states still have this archaic law on the books.
    
    	-Ellen

    
    	Correct, Mass does have the cohabition law.  They were fired,
    	because they broke the law.  The law either has or will be
    	recinded any day.
    
    

    
      I think I read last weekend that it was rescinded.  The two
      officers were not fired (or were allowed to return)
    
    

    Yes, Gov. Dukakis signed the repeal of the Mass. anti-cohabitation
    law last week.
    				Steve

    The officers got married, and were reinstated in their jobs. I
    believe they said they were going to marry anyway.
    
    Bruce

    re 21:  That's true they were allowed to return to work etc.  but
    look what they  had to go through because of an ancient law.  Who
    wants your life thrown on the six o'clock news with film at 11:00?
    
    :-)
    
    bs