hosting by

Confessions of a TV Addict by Greg Coyle A Cautionary Tale BusOneSeven : Comfortably Numb by Roderick Armageddon What the world doesn’t need is another epic tragedy HGTV DIY FYI: CYA by Stacy Westbrook Do-it-yourself made easy?     Ask Doris Helpful Advice for You and Your Family Out of Sites by Jeff Gores Good web sites or good laughs? Find them both here.

How To Be A Vice President
Do you have what it takes to lead our country?
by Kent Lewis

Many thoughts went through my head as I prepared to write my introduction to the current issue on vices. I won’t bore you with the details; suffice it to say chocolate and porn were top of mind. Before I spent too much time exploring the dark recesses of my gray matter, I figured it would be prudent to confirm the definition. As you might guess, it’s essentially "an evil, degrading, or immoral practice or habit." Sweet, I thought, this is going to be a cakewalk.

Then I got to thinking about it. I’m not into drugs, prostitution, gambling, porn or any combination thereof, especially involving Martha Stewart. Actually, I take back the part about Martha Stewart if you count the evening on her yacht in the Gulf of Mexico with a poodle, electric toothbrush and bathtub full of cottage cheese. With that exception, I’m just not a vice-intensive person. But that got me to thinking, who is the vice type? Then it hit me like the crack from Martha’s leather whip, El Presidente!

From George Washington to George W. Bush, our commanders-in-chief have brought vice to the "White House." I recently heard that the only Presidents not to have had a mistress were Jimmy Carter and possibly Richard Nixon. I wasn’t surprised Jimmy made the list (have you seen his brother Billy?), but I was very surprised that only two Presidents have been faithful to their wives. How did this happen? How has this become the acceptable norm?

Are vice and the Presidency like the chicken and egg? Which comes first? Are they mutually exclusive? Is vice inherently part of the Presidency or is the Presidency a natural destination for a vice-prone politician? Perhaps a look back at a few of our nation’s leaders will shed some light.

When I think of vices like drugs, sex, gambling and other forms of moral corruption, I automatically think of the Kennedy family. In the 60s, Americans seemed to look beyond the adultery, drinking, bribery and mob ties to see John and Jackie in Camelot. Yet John and his siblings learned politics from their father well before JFK’s ascendancy to the White House.

Clinton will be best known for making a household name of a former White House intern, a cigar and a stained dress. He was known for his indiscretions with women (least of whom being his wife, Hillary) prior to and during his Presidency. Not only did he avoid impeachment, he managed to garner high acceptance ratings from the public.

In both cases, I believe that vice was a part of their lives prior to being President. The public acceptance of vice in higher office is as much about indifference as idolization. In JFK’s case, the few that knew of his indiscretions kept them secret and everyone else idolized him (forgive the brash generalizations). In Clinton’s case, the media made sure that everyone knew of his "weakness for the flesh" and a vast majority of the public accepted it as a normal part of DC life.

All things being equal, I figure I’m just not fit for Presidency. I just don’t have the genes. I guess I’m just not as blessed as Condit. Look for him in 2004.