KINDER'S COMMENTARY: ALL POLITICAL CANDIDATES -- WINNERS AND LOSERS -- DESERVE CREDIT

One of the stories I cherish from old political lore is a comment attributed to Speaker Sam Rayburn, the Texas Democrat who ruled for so long in the U.S. House of Representatives. His friend and graduate of Southwest Texas State Teachers College, U.S. Sen. Lyndon Johnson, had just been elected vice president with U.S. Sen. John Kennedy. The president-elect was stocking his administration with lots of intellectual types from the Ivy League and other elite schools.

"You just won't believe how smart these guys are," an excited LBJ is said to have told Speaker Rayburn. "They're from Harvard and MIT and have all these fancy advanced degrees. There's just never been a group this smart in our government before." These are the brilliant intellectuals -- later characterized as "The Best and the Brightest" in David Halberstam's book of that name -- who would march us into the swamp of a years-long land war in Asia with no plan for an endgame.

"Maybe you're right, Lyndon, but I'm not so sure," Speaker Rayburn said in a reply for the ages. "I sure wish one of JFK's smart guys had run for county sheriff just once."

What a great variety of small-d democratic faith there is in that remark.

As you get involved in competitive election campaigns, you acquire an appreciation for any who are willing to submit themselves to this demanding regimen. I salute each and every one of the folks in both parties who ran for office, at any level, in the just-concluded primary election. I have friends in both parties throughout Southeast Missouri and across the state. Some won on Tuesday, while others lost. I salute them all -- Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, independent, whatever. Win or lose, running for office is a unique experience.

* * * * *

Air Force veteran U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pennsylvania, offered this contribution to the public discourse:

"Please tell us, my liberal defenders of the president's conduct, why was Sen. Bob Packwood run out of town for his conduct? Why did liberal Democrat after liberal Democrat, including the current vice president, denounce Sen. John Tower as `unfit for office' because of the allegations of womanizing?"

Then, two more questions:

"Why one standard for Republicans and another for Democrats? Why was Justice Clarence Thomas absolutely vilified by feminist and liberal groups ... over questionable allegations, while the current leader of the free world is given every possible excuse, justification and defense for his conduct for a myriad of abuses, for numerous women providing evidence in a vast cover-up orchestration?"

* * * * *

I notice that chief among President Clinton's defenders is U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. I remember when old Barney used to trash the Gipper for not knowing what was transpiring down at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Personally, I value the kind of president who takes a nap, or goes horseback riding, rather than filling his head with whatever is going on down there, but that's another topic.) What about Barney?

Old Barney used to trash Ronald Reagan until it transpired that his lover, who lived in the basement of his apartment, was running a male prostitution ring out of Frank's own house. Barney stoutly maintained he didn't know anything about it.

So this is what we've come to: Barney Frank telling Americans what is and isn't acceptable sexual conduct, what we should approve and what we must condemn.

Truly, this is a liberal triumph. This is Bill Clinton's America, as seen through the prism of a glibly articulate liberal museum piece from Boston.

~Peter Kinder is assistant to the president of Rust Communications and a state senator from Cape Girardeau.