Therefore questions of selectively presented truth, or incomplete honesty, count against his reputation more than they would someone who is seen as a run-of-the-mill partisan. Similarly: suspicions of extra-marital dalliance would do more damage to someone whose image involved being strait-laced than to someone already known as a rogue. (Think: Mitt Romney on the one hand, Bill Clinton on the other.)Since Mr Fallows fails to review other politicians and neglects to give us sterling examples of doing it right, can I take it as given that Mr Fallows believes setting low standards is better than setting high standards and then failing to meet them. Granted, the first is the better politician, however, the second has a shot at statesmanship.
Then there is always the oft cited:
Sets low personal standards and continually fails to meet them.But, back to the example from Mr Fallows. Just because I know Bill Clinton is a rogue does not mean I would be happy with him seducing my daughter. Your milage may vary.
Regards — Cliff