as predicted here at DU!
"The legacy of lasciviousness"
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/dw20040628.shtml
<snip>
The political unraveling of Jack Ryan, a once-promising GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate from Illinois, offers an example of this dubious legacy. When Ryan's child custody court records -- which contain his former wife's ultra-sordid allegations that Ryan tried to compel her to participate at "explicit sex clubs" in New Orleans, New York and Paris -- were unsealed this week, the candidate found himself trying to throw a political blanket over unsavory, now-exposed appetites he had hoped would remain hidden.
Should they have remained private? Yes, but so should have Ryan. And would have, I think, had he described to his GOP boosters the exact nature of the skeletons that his ex-wife, fairly or not, had hung in his closet. Ryan says he didn't break the law, his marriage vows or the Ten Commandments. This appears to be true, but his private life as a husband has nonetheless sorely undermined his public character as a potential Republican senator.
He disagrees. "I think if that's the worst people can say about me ... I think it speaks very well about my character," he says. I'm not sure Ryan should be touting "character" now that his GOP boosters in Illinois -- which include former governors and state officials -- have been stung. It may not be the Clinton cabinet in the rain exactly, but it's little wonder some of his supporters are feeling all wet.
Bill Clinton -- publicly disgraced by the tatty climax to a seemingly endless string of notorious "bimbo eruptions" and assorted abuses of power and position -- taught us that if you could stay in the ring, you should. Ryan, tarred by his ex-wife's charges, has learned not to consider whether he should stay in the ring (or whether he should have ventured forth in the first place), only whether he'll be able to remain. Voters deserve better, or should. If only they could find it in themselves to demand it.