Truth and Integrity

It occurred to me a few years ago, probably right around the time that resentment to George W. Bush was really kicking into high gear, that we accept some people's explanations, arguments and convictions at face value, and with others, we simply don't. This happens with politicians all the time. Why is this? Is it a good or bad thing?

Especially in Bush's first term, many of us trusted him implicitly. Bush's one most bankable asset is that he forthrightly states what he believes and what he really thinks. The credibility of his stances (hmmm, maybe ought to reword that, thanks to Larry Craig, but if I say "positions", is that really an improvement?) on some issues should certainly be scrutinized. But sincerity counts for something to a lot of us, which is why the contention by the Moveon.org types that "Bush lied, kids died" has not gained mileage in mainstream America to any great extent. Bush's perceived stubbornness has damaged his approval ratings, but not his dishonesty.

There is a reason that this latest exaggeration by Hillary about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire has blown into a real prairie blaze of a story. It plays into the Clinton persona that has existed for years now. Bob Dole said in 1996 that the greatest difficulty he faced in achieving the White House that year was that he was up against an opponent who would say anything to get elected.

The problem so many conservatives have with Hillary is that she seems to have no core of integrity. Her electoral difficulties are also heightened by the fact that she's not as good at the blarney and the one-of-the-folks gladhanding as her husband is.

Am I being fair with this assessment, though? Have we conservatives just trusted Bush because he was a Republican? Do Democrats actually trust both Hillary and Bill Clinton?

I'll just make a couple more points along this line, and then hope some of you all weigh in! :)

I don't only trust Republicans, even though I am one. (For that matter, I don't trust all Republicans, but that's another story for another time.) Joe Lieberman is a Democrat who exudes credibility and integrity. I felt in late 2003 that if the Democrats were smart enough to choose Lieberman for their nominee in 2004, Bush would have a real fight on his hands. Walter Mondale is another Democrat who seems like a fine man and a trustworthy public servant, although seemingly, I wouldn't agree with him on anything. Other names I could add to this list would include former Senator Bill Bradley from New Jersey, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Dianne Feinstein from California, former Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York....and I'm sure there are others, though they aren't springing to mind at the moment. I would have added Barack Obama to this list a few weeks ago, but the trust issue has really taken a hit with Obama for me, over the last month. Not just from the Jeremiah Wright flap either; I was reminded by a column I read today about the memo that surfaced showing that Obama's positioning on NAFTA was primarily for political ends (or some such wording).

Not. Good. At. All.

To clarify, this is not to say that I would agree with these public figures on the issues; far from it. They seem to me, though, like men and women who mean what they say and who are essentially people of honorable character.

There is something within me that rejoices when I see a politician take bold stands and follow through with votes to that effect over the years, even if I disagree vehemently with them. At least, you know what you're opposing in such cases. And if you can agree with the person most of the time, all the better. My hero, Ronald Reagan, talked about implementing a platform with "bold colors, no pale pastels." YES! Let's have more of it.