Dirty Laundry
By Mitch Berg
As I’ve noted in many other places at many other times, I have the absolute highest regard for Michael Brodkorb.
Now, the other day, I took mild exception to the fact that Michael posted former Senator and possible future Ventura “Independence” Party candidate Dean Barkley’s Match.com ad. My philosophy; keep others’ personal lives out of things. Partly because it’s the right thing to do. Partly because as one sows, one tends to reap.
Andy Aplikowski and Jeff Kouba agreed. Jeff’s TvM blogmate Gary Miller doesn’t.
And when Gary disagrees, it’s worth a look:
Like Justice Scalia writing for the minority, let me inject some reality to the situation.
Politics is a full-contact sport. The other team plays to win. Would the Left exercise similar restraint if the roles were reversed? You already know the answer [Gary writes, linking to the “Dump Bachmann” blog, which has lowered local political yellow journalism to a level even Jeff Fecke can look down upon with both relief and disdain]. To not use your opponent’s words against them is the political equivalent of unilateral disarmament.
There are two Mitches who”ll respond to this, of course; High Road Mitch, and Pragmatic Path Mitch.
High Road Mitch: I’d like to think that I – we – are better than the type of moral and ethical fruit flies that put out goo like the Dumb Bachmann blog. I certainly aspire to aim higher in life, morally and practically, than Ken “Look! Bachmann in a Nazi Uniform” Avidor (as low a set of expectations as that sets). Ones’ moral code is best set to one’s ideals, not one’s detractors’ level.
Pragmatic Path Mitch: Sure, politics is hardball. And as more and more people and pundits keep peeling away more and more layers of whatever “privacy” people used to have, it drives away more and more good people from ever even thinking about getting involved in politics.
I’m certainly one of them. I think I’d be a perfectly fine elected representative at some level or another, if I were to move to a more GOP-friendly part of the Metro. But there’s not a chance in hell that I’d do it, because…
…well, we’ll get back to that.
Minnesota’s 6th is as culturally conservative a district as you will find in these here parts.
Pragmatic Path Mitch responds: But that majority – who put Michele Bachmann, the most conservative candidate in the state in a year where Republicans dropped like Air America programs – has never been in the faintest danger of electing Barkley, a guy who’s never won a a significant office in his life (if you leave out his proxy win via Ventura, his Potemkin candidate) to anything, much less the Bachmann seat.
Folks can discern a great deal about a person’s worldview predicated on how they act when no one is looking.
High Road Mitch responds: Discern…what? That someone’s a divorced guy who’d like to meet someone who (as he writes in a forum that he can’t imagine someone is going to make into a public spectacle) likes some of the same things he does in private?
A professed affinity (in a public forum) for “skinny dipping” and “erotica” is a disqualifier for many people who govern their lives by a different set of values — a majority of whom comprise the electorate in the 6th.
Pragmatic Path Mitch responds: I doubt that anyone who signs up for Match.com actually knows it’s a public forum.
And even so – what’s this? “No, um, “S E X”, please, we’re from the northern ‘burbs“. Criminy, if the guy likes skinnydipping with his signifcant other and reading the occasional Maxim Magazine, as long as he’s not inviting anyone’s kids along to watch or read along, what difference does it make?
Which is a better reason to eschew a Dean Barkley candidacy: “he likes to snog around in the local lagoon with his sig.other and watch a little Cinemax”, or “He’s a tax whore. Worse, he’s a stealth tax whore”.
For that matter, what if someone with impeccable conservative credentials came along, who happened to like a little, er, zing and zip in his or her private life?
Where do these people think tomorrow’s conservative voters come from, anyway?
I will confess, however, to feeling dirty finding out that a fmr. U.S. Senator and trained lawyer can only muster 75-100K/year. Now there’s your disqualifier.
Weirdest part of the whole thing? He used his Senate head shot for his Match profile.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:38 am
One thing I like about knowing you, Mitch, is that you and I can disagree without being disagreeable. (We don’t generally do that, mind you; you’re a full-spectrum conservative, and my public politics tend to be either narrow or focused, depending on whether one thinks what I do is a good or bad thing . . . )
Not this time. You’re right; they’re wrong. The “expose” of Barkely as a blatantly out-of-the-closet heterosexual who would like to meet and date attractive women was both tactically and morally wrong. (There have been worse moral wrongs committed, if course — but that’s hardly the standard.)
June 21st, 2007 at 8:42 am
I had not “chimed in” on this because I was having the same High Road LL/ Pragmatic Path LL debate you were. After seeing that I was not the only one, I can say that I still agree with you 100% on this Mitch!
I have a friend that used Match.com and there is no expectation that those profiles are “public”. Michael was way out of line on this one….
LL
June 21st, 2007 at 9:21 am
Dean and I have been friends for over 30 years. We played rugby together for years. I was at his wedding. So, saying that, I do not have a disinterested 3rd party view. I went to his first post election party ( 1994-where he told me I was not dressed as a good Republican, and I immediately reminded and admonished him that i was NOT a Republican;I was [and still am] a conservative and thanked him never to make that critical mistake again. He hasn’t.)
I sent the link to my best friend in Florida (also a friend of Dean’s).
He and I agree: leave this one alone. Be a high-roader.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:24 am
“Folks can discern a great deal about a person’s worldview predicated on how they act when no one is looking. ”
Remove the focus on the supposedly salacious details of Barkley’s profile and I think this is a perfectly fair point.
The way that Barkley chooses to present himself is, frankly, pretty depressing. He comes across as a completely lost soul. At 56, he’s still trying to determine what he wants to do with his life (a concept I can empathize with). He’s grudgingly returning to practicing law as he sees himself left with no other options.
He strikes me as someone who’s realized that his “accomplishments” were built on a house of cards, and as that house continues to fall around him, he’s trying to roll back the clock for a do-over.
The voyeuristic exposure to this aspect of Barkley’s life is what gives me the willies.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:08 am
Politics is a full-contact sport. The other team plays to win. Would the Left exercise similar restraint if the roles were reversed? You already know the answer [Gary writes, linking to the “Dump Bachmann” blog, which has lowered local political yellow journalism to a level even Jeff Fecke can look down upon with both relief and disdain]. To not use your opponent’s words against them is the political equivalent of unilateral disarmament.
Gary seems to be missing an essential point – politics is a rough and tumble business but only a fool swings at every pitch. There have been far too many examples where mudslinging has backfired on the people doing it or (more importantly) on the people they are perceived to be supported. Attacking someone’s personal life is no different then gossip and while there are many people who enjoy listening to gossip, the people listening to it don’t respect the people who spread it.
Better to focus on the issues.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:16 am
“Folks can discern a great deal about a person’s worldview predicated on how they act when no one is looking. ”
I don’t believe this is true at all. There are plenty of examples of conservative stalwarts from Ronald Reagan to Newt Gingrich to Rod Grams whose personal lives were far more chaotic than their liberal opponents. It didn’t stop them from being right on the issues or generally effective in office. Nor did having stable marriages and loving families make their opponents’ positions any less awful.
Saying that someone’s personal life gives you some essential insight into their worldview that you couldn’t gleam from focusing on the issues is just an excuse used by people who enjoy gossiping but want to pretend that they’re doing it for some “higher purpose.”
June 21st, 2007 at 11:36 am
The real problem about this from a pure Political view is that it hurts Michael’s cause.
The more personal unimportant stuff like this he runs with, the more the important stuff can be dismissed.
I imagine this will be used many times:
– By the press to defend bad acts – “The campaign got ugly early when Republican Party Staffer released details of personal ads”
– And by others to belittle real information – “He was digging through personal ads, so anything he posts has to suspect”
No one expects hard news from the National Enquirer and MDE is slowing heading that way.
And to the “Politics is hard ball and they do it” – I assume since we know the other side has stuffed ballot boxes before that makes it ok for us to do. Or slashing tires on vehicles to pick up voters. Or bribing people to vote etc…
June 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
He’s a pretty sad guy. A typical baby boomer who won’t grow up even in middle age.
He was proud that he doesn’t act his age–at 56!
Mike nailed it.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Yeah, Savage Republican, the real problem is that it might not work. Not that it’s, you know, wrong.
I wonder why so many of you wingnuts are complete moral imbeciles.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Now angryclown, Savage Republican did qualify the statement with “from a pure Political view”.
If you want to drawn the conclusion that anyone is a “complete moral imbecile” from what followed you certainly may, but I must disagree. I would paraphrase it:
“Putting all other criteria aside, posting this material doesn’t accomplish MDE’s political goals”
Does that help you angryclown? 🙂
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Not so much, Trojan Man. You wingnuts have been “putting all other criteria aside” ever since Joe McCarthy got elected to the Senate. Let’s not pretend it’s just a rhetorical stance.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Joe McCarthy now? Let’s not pretend you’re serious.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Power is much more important to you wingnuts than ethics or morality, Trojan Man.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Is this “angryclown’s lesson of Joe McCarthy”?
Please, angryclown, will you let me make sweeping and presumptuous statements about “people like you”, support it with a frail “since Joe McCarthy”, blather on a bit about what is “important to you” (I’ll just assume I must know better than you), and then…
…you just take me and what I have to say seriously. 😉