While I was preparing the new site, Eric Zorn covered the Hull story quite well.
The weblog has the story as it developed
The first column
The second column
I was tempted to make a joke about throwing the remote at the TV everytime our esteemed President squints, but the subject is quite serious.
The evidence is that Blair Hull made a mistake during a highly contentious divorce. A serious mistake, but a one-time mistake. I do not think it is disqualifying, but it does show the problem that candidates often fail to address early.
Bush did it with the DUI and the with the military records (may still be doing it in that case). If you have a mistake in your past and you are running for office, prepare a file with all of the documentation and give it to the press about two weeks after you announce-after the initial bounce and before serious campaigning starts. If the problem isn’t serious, it goes away and you earn credit for being forthright. If you wait, is surprises you at the worst possible moment everytime.
Bush–72 hours before the election while momentum was already swinging the other way. Hull–the minute he took the frontrunner position and knocked him off message.
I tend to buy both explanations by these candidates–they wanted to keep family matters private. It doesn’t make it any less stupid though. The press will find out and you will look like you are trying to hide something by not going through full disclosure. It is just dumb and it takes the matter out of your control and makes it look like you aren’t fully honest. More than that, once the heat of the campaign hits, candidates always end up releasing the records, always. Even if it is in the campaign such as the President’s military record.
One defense is that such vetting discourages people from running and that it sets a standard of having a perfect record. I don’t buy it for two reasons.
First, the number of people with an ego to seek the US Senate is never in short supply. Frankly, eating bad chicken dinners and listening to annoying people ask if you can fix their potholes are a far greater deterrence than a bit of personal ridicule.
Second, I think we are moving to a period where blemishes are okay, as long as you are honest and forthright about them. Rauschenberger has a DUI and by simply taking responsibility for it, he took control of the issue. That isn’t hurting him in this election, though the empty suit brigade ahead of him all have clean records.
The final thing to consider is that Hull and his ex-wife may know that the actual violence was a one-time event, but the voters didn’t. The voters have a right to know if the candidate did regularly abuse his wife. That is a serious character issue and a serious illegal act–far different than philandering by a certain ex-President. The only way for voters to determine if it is serious is to see the record and now they have.
ArchPundit