WHAT CHARACTER?

Evidently, character is only an issue when the other side's is in question What is the 'character' of Bush administration? By Robert Steinback MIAMI HERALD So, why isn't character on the table this time? Character, we were all so piously told seven years ago, was what elevated Bill Clinton's lie about an extramarital dalliance to an issue of national gravity and justified his impeachment. It was a lie that, to those of us who were not hyperventilating with rage, seemed trivial compared to matters concerning the ship of state, even if it was a lie told under oath in a trumped-up civil trial. No, no, no, we were scolded; it goes to the character of the man. If you can't rely on a leader to confess before the entire ogling world that he dropped his pants for the wrong woman, how could you trust anything he said? Our children would abandon all respect for honesty, integrity and propriety, using the excuse, "Well, the president did it. Why can't I?" These dire predictions of social anarchy struck me as absurdly exaggerated, but the standard was set. Or so we thought. In rode a new administration and party promising to raise the bar on character. As I see it, they've splintered that bar into toothpicks. And yet, isn't it curious how in the public discourse today one rarely hears references to character as a material issue with respect to political leadership? If an extramarital affair was proof of a vacant character, wouldn't questionable actions that actually affect people - soldiers, covert agents, Congress, storm victims and the like - be exponentially more serious? Apparently not.