WurfWhile

I guess in some ways this falls under “hindsight.” I had heard a rumors of sexual impropriety (and actually something substantially worse than what’s been reported) were contained in the Ryan divorce papers and, after writing what I did last Friday, and holding my blog entry, I decided to publish the divorce paper piece below. Of course as soon as I did I found out from a reader the cat was out of the bag. But I had published the previous account because I felt no matter what was in the papers, my ground was sound. I still think so.

Unless I mistake what I’m reading, there appears to be nothing illegal about what Jack Ryan is alleged to have done. The allegations may make him look like a jerk or worse, a testament to his character, but this would hardly be the first divorce that did that. If what I’m reading about the divorce papers is it, then it strikes me that the judge may have been wrong in letting the information out. It simply doesn’t appear a crime was committed in the worst possible light. Jeri Ryan, an adult woman, said “no” to the alleged conduct and, it is again alleged, she refused two other attempts by Jack to participate in the same conduct. That Jack Ryan, it is alleged, got angry that his wife Jeri was not willing to consensually do something apparently legal, however distasteful, doesn’t rise to the clear level of public import to me (especially since it is and was disputed by Jack). How could it rise to that level given the allegations? Jack Ryan has declared himself a “family values” candidate, and he is open to the charge of hypocrisy if the charges are true. That is a character issue with public implications. The question is does the public need to know about this particular allegation outweigh the legitimate protection of Jack and Jeri’s child, and their privacy? I’m not sure. What if, for example, the allegation turns out to be false (and, for what it’s worth, that’s not a bet I’m placing)? It is also relevant to my thoughts that Jeri Ryan did not want the allegations out and has endorsed her former husband’s character:

“I consider Jack a friend,” the statement [from Jeri Ryan] said. “There was never any physical abuse in our marriage, either to myself or to our son. Nor to my knowledge was he ever unfaithful to me. Jack is a good man, a loving father and he shares a strong bond with our son. I have no doubt that he will make an excellent senator.”

Of course there are any number of reasons why Jeri Ryan might say what she said and not be sincere, and she notably did not retract the allegations in the divorce proceedings, but it would be a different matter altogether if she spoke out against Jack. She didn’t.

Permitting public officials private lives is essential to getting good people to run for office. I was never a Bill Clinton fan, and he did public things I found inexcusable. But however inexcusable the Monica Lewinsky affair was, and it was that, it should have been left private for the Clintons (and Monica) to address. The erosion of public officials’ private lives has likely cost the public quality legislative and executive leadership, because good people won’t subject their families to the intrusion on their lives.

While we already have clear evidence that Jack Ryan doesn’t treat people well, and that he has gone at least once to an “avant-garde nightclub in Paris,” I think the reason not to vote for Jack is simple: I do not like Jack Ryan’s politics. I think people should look at what Jack Ryan proposes to do as U.S. Senator, and not vote for Jack Ryan based on his positions.