https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Disclosure

How much information is Too Much Information? John Kerry has ruled out opening up records of his 1988 divorce. “It’s history, ancient history. My ex-wife and I are terrific friends,…

How much information is Too Much Information?

John Kerry has ruled out opening up records of his 1988 divorce.

“It’s history, ancient history. My ex-wife and I are terrific friends, very proud of our children. We have stayed close through those years as an extended family,” the Massachusetts senator said, adding, “It’s none of anybody’s business, period.”

We’ve been through this bit before, and no doubt will again: what information about someone’s private life is worthwhile knowing for the public when voting for someone? Or, put the other way around, what information isn’t worthwhile?

Since my own divorce was pretty amicable, as such things go, there wouldn’t be any skeletons in that closet, should I suddenly find myself running for President. On the other hand, I’d still resent having that information opened up to prying eyes.

On the other hand, if you’re running for President, “if you can’t stand the heat, don’t try to go into the kitchen.” As the past decades have shown, any potential private weaknesses or vulnerabilities or scandels will come back to haunt you over your term. In some ways it’s better to get them out in the open, up front, and put them behind you, then fight a lengthy, ultimately fruitless battle, which only magnifies the “importance” when the records are finally opened up.

(And if they’re never opened up — well, that’s just grist for the conspiracy mills, right?)

Kerry uses as a defense that he and his ex are good friends, and neither presumably want to have the records opened up. That didn’t wash for the Ryans, neither of whom wanted those records opened up — and once they were ordered open by the courts, it certainly ended a political career.

But it was all 15-plus years ago, right? What’s the relevance? Well, heck, folks keep poking and prodding at what Dubya was doing two or three or four decades ago. Clinton’s past follies were simlarly on forced display. I don’t know that’s all a good thing, but it’s certainly a precedent.

I don’t know that there’s anything horribly embarrassing in those divorce papers. I even suspect probably not, beyond just recollections of the event itself. But Kerry’s attempt to stonewall releasing of the records can only pique interest in them, which is a distraction neither he — nor the electorate — particularly need right now. Previous stonewalling about the personal past by his opponent should certainly demonstrate that poit.

26 view(s)  

One thought on “Disclosure”

  1. Evidently most of the divorce info is already available. The actual financial details of the settlement are sealed, but the “juicy bits” about the divorce itself, under Massachusetts’ no-fault divorce law, are pretty tame “irreconcilable differences.”

    Kerry did try to get the other records sealed in 1995, but the request was denied.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *