Bedsheet standards of political views

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34047, 10 January 1976, Page 12

Bedsheet standards of political views

(By

MIKE ROYKO,

of the "Chicago Daily News ')

CHICAGO. The disclosures about President Kennedy’s bedroom exploits have led to one of the strangest political arguments in the history of taverns, call-in radio shows and other halls of learning.

The question being debated is whether what Kennedy did was worse than the Watergate affair. I’m not sure that the two issues, if you want to call them that, can be compared, but many people are trying. The Nixon supporters are the most audible. After years of being on the defensive, they are enjoying - chance to badmouth somebody else, which is what they like to do best. There’s little doubt in their minds that it is a far more serious offence against the nation to mess around with women to whom you are not married than to try to subvert justice while holding public office. Maybe they are right. I honestly can’t say because, as a political issue, the removal of one’s trousers in a lady’s bedroom is something I haven’t thought much about. One of the most piercing shrieks has come from Patrick Buchanan, now a syndicated political columnist and formerly a writer of foamlipped speeches for Nixon and Agnew. Buchanan wailed that Kennedy has betrayed all the nice priests and nuns who believed he was a good lad. That may be true. But I assume that the priests and

nuns also believe in upholding the law, truth in public office, and other niceties, and Buchanan, didn’t express rage about what a big disappointment the Nixon sneaks wej-e to them. Selling an image

Buchanan also sputters that Kennedy’s activities now prove that the Kennedy’s Camelot was just a big,” image-building fraud. Of course it was. Anybody who wasn’t a ninny knew that. As a political image-builder, Buchanan knows it is standard for politicians to sell the happy-family image. When Nixon unveiled his cabinet, it looked like a gathering of trouble-free country club couples. Later, Secret Service men were sticking needles in poor Martha Mitchell’s behind to keep her off the phone. And Buchanan says that Kennedy’s alleged infidelity to his wife proves that he was incapable of providing moral leadership to the nation. Come on. When a man is unfaithful to his wife, what it proves, and all it proves, is that he is a man who will be unfaithful to his wife. It has nothing to do with how well he does his job. It might even help him do his job better. Well, if Buchanan can draw goofy conclusions, so can 1.

If Nixon’s supporters are 1 going to apply , bedsheet-l standards to political leaders, then they should be! wary of any bicentennial I celebration that has nice things to say about Thomas; Jefferson, our third Presi-i dent. Other interests They don’t teach it in the eighth grade, but Jefferson had other interests than his plantation and thinking great thoughts. He carried on a long relationship with a woman who wasn’t his wife, and this led to seven illegitimate children. And — all you bedroom moralists brace yourselves — Jefferson’s lady was black. I’d hate to even think i about what Mr Buchanani and other Nixon diehards would have to say about a present-day politician who ; fathered seven illegitimate j children. And inter-racial I children at that. Tsk, tsk. Then there was Ben Franklin, and don’t be deceived by his portly figure. In some respects, he was the Joe Namath of his day. Little wonder that the notorious Franklin flew a kite. The way he spent his nights, he was probably too tired for more strenuous sport. On the other hand, the! bedsheet standard of states-I manship and moral lead- : ership might require us to I say a good word about one lof the better known sexual ; abstainers of modern history I — Adolph Hitler. ! If Kennedy’s exploits make him a bad man, then Hitler’s lack of interest surely qualify him for political sainthood. He just didn’t go in for it. Maybe he liked strange books ”on the subject, or even peepholes. I don’t know. But those who claim to know say that when it came to the basic act, he was just a bystander. Interesting question Nixon’s supporters also demand to know why the press wasn’t as -zealous in reporting Kennedy’s affairs as it was in dealing with Watergate. That’s an interesting question, as well as an idiotic one. For one thing, it is I difficult, even for the most

dedicated reporter, to cover a story of what is happening in somebody else’s bedroom. Few people invite the press in to watch. Second-hand accounts are also almost impossible to obtain, since press aides seldom issue news releases on the subject. Also, most reporters be|lieve that even public figures are entitled to privacy at i certain times, for which lib- , eral, conservative, Democrat and Republican politicians are grateful, since Kennedy wasn’t the only guy in Washington with a gleam in his eye. Naturally, there are circumstances in which Kennedy’s activities could have been made public at the time. If his wife had sued for divorce and accused the President of philandering, the facts, as related in court or in her suit, would have been widely reported. That's what happened with the information on Watergate that came out in Judge Sirica’s courtroom and in the Congressional hearings and other official inquiries. They were reported. Most of what is news doesn’t originate with the press. It comes out somewhere else first, in court testimony, legislative hearings, and governmental reports. That didn't happen ini Kennedy’s case. If his wife! knew, she didn’t say any-[ thing and hasn’t yet. Most of the cries of, ‘Philanderer.” “lecher” and “betrayer” have come from old prunes land people like Buchanan. [And they probably didn’t send a wedding gift in the 'first place. About the only other way : the press could have reported the Kennedy story would have been to bug his bedroom, burglarise the lady’s diary, or peep through his transom.

You know, the kind of things that were popular among those who provided us with our most recent dose of moral leadership.