Jack Ryan, Republican nominee for US Senate in IL, had to step down because of allegations in his sealed divorce records. The records were unsealed due to legal action by the Chicago Tribune among others.

State Republicans begin search to replace Ryan
Jack Ryan's statement

Now Matt Drudge is noting this development and calling for the release of sealed records from Kerry's 1988 divorce from his first wife, Julia Stimson Thorne, and the Chicago Tribune is considering filing a similar request for information.

CHASE ON FOR SEALED KERRY DIVORCE DOCUMENTS

Questions -

If the public's right to know outweighs the candidate's right to privacy for Jack Ryan, would this also be true for John Kerry?

Should John Kerry's divorce records be made public before he is potentially elected to the highest office in the land?

You may recall that in another thread a few days ago, in which the Jack Ryan case was being discussed, I said that I did not like what was happening because of the appauling precident it was setting. This apparently shows my prediction has come true.

ABSOLUTELY NOT, Kerry's divorce records dhould not be made public, the idea is laughable. A divorce is a painful, stressful end to a life partnership, a private affair between two people. It is, by definition, a glimpse into people at their worst, as they are lost, hurt and losing something very close to them for what may have been many, many years. Making divorce proceedings part of the pilitical process is foolish. Not only should Kerry's divorce not be unsealed, but neither should Ryan's.


Besides, could someone point me out the constitutional clause, amendment or law which explains this completely unfettered 'right to know' of the public?

This is just down right disgusting, both incidents. Divorce is a product of home life and has no bearing on public affairs, of the home and should remain in the home. What I consider to be the most distasteful aspect of this trend is that most people go to great lenghts to shield their children from the contents of such proceedings. An example of exactly how private and personal divorce is and should remain, now if members of immediate family are readily kept in the dark what are they thinking when it is brought out so publicly.

I think the divorce records in both cases should have remained sealed. Nothing would keep reporters from researching alleged incidents. But should these incidents be pursued?

I think that the Bush campaign would want to distance itself from this strategy, because I suspect that in a closet hunt, Bush would have as many or more skeletons to hide than Kerry.

Kerry's marital past probably will not be something that wins over votes. But hopefully, these types of skeleton hunts will be rejected by the American public.

A column in the Chicago Tribune made an interesting point over the weekend. That rumors about what was in the records were already rampant, and that sometime, someone would have dug them up. Then, they could have held Ryan hostage for a decision - on a judge, a piece of legislation, etc. - happens all the time. Maybe this is a reason for the public to know. I'm still not sure.




Vermillion - Surely you're not suggesting that the California courts are a bit activist in their interpretation of the Constitution!


Tribune article (may require registration)

The former Mrs. Kerry was interviewed in Newsweek and made it quite clear that she bears him no ill will, would vote for him, and does NOT want any invasion of her privacy.

Unlike Jeri Ryan....

The newspaper should respect Ms. Thorne's privacy as well as ours.

Statement of Jeri Ryan



amf, Based on the statement above, made by Jeri Ryan last week, what exactly are you saying? She didn't want those records release either. That had nothing to do with the judge's decision.

Yes, if you based it EXCLUSIVELY on that statement above... then Jeri wants nothing bad for Jack. But... how did all those nasty sex stories get out there? Wasn't me! Wasn't you! I wonder who...?

Meanwhile, we haven't heard anything particularly bad about Kerry's past marriage, so why the sudden interest in invading their privacy?

As for the judge's decision, it might fly in Illinois, but doubtful it'll work in Massachusetts....

1 - This was a California judge, not Illinois. I believe that Kerry's divorce records are sealed in Denver, not in Massachusetts.

2 - As for Kerry's indicretions, besides the recent mistress in Kenya non-story, the Boston Globe was writing about it in the late 80's...but I guess you'd have to read between the lines to see that they were writing about infidelity. Referring to several 'long time' affairs in an article that starts by saying that his marriage was only over for 6 months. Piques my interest anyway.
excerpt only - you can buy the article here

I'll give you the locations for the divorce, since I'm supposed to be working instead of debating

As for what you say vs. what the article says... saying the "marriage was over" vs. the "divorce has been final" is a HUGE difference, as anyone in a marriage that took a long time to finally die would tell you.

And, not surprisingly, I'm not so interested in the details. I don't read "People" either

Let me know if he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Or binge drank. Or snorted coke. Oh, wait, that was....

If the public's right to know outweighs the candidate's right to privacy for Jack Ryan, would this also be true for John Kerry?

I'm not sure that the "public's right to know" really should extend to something like a divorce. I didn't condone it in the case of Jack Ryan and I don't condone it for Kerry.

I'd like to be convinced what bearing anything in those files has on Kerry's ability to lead the country or on Jack Ryan's ability to hold public office?

Should John Kerry's divorce records be made public before he is potentially elected to the highest office in the land?

No, it is none of our business. It serves absolutely no purpose except to drag a politician through the mud and make him look human in public.

I thought that it was a mistake to have Jack Ryan's divorce records made public. Now Mr. Ryan's poor son is burdened with the knowledge of all the sordid details of his parents' split, and once again the public discourse is sidetracked from the issues that really matter to an inconsequential, sensational diversion. I know nothing of Mr. Ryan's politics other than his party affiliation, but I have no reason to doubt that he was as capable a candidate as his replacement. What a waste of time!

Of course I disagree with a tit-for-tat witch-hunt that seeks to pry into John Kerry's private past. Two wrongs don't make a right!

The only recent instance of this sort that I felt was remotely in the public interest was during the California Recall Campaign last year. Ryan's case involves the propositioning of the man's own wife (with no alleged abuse whatsoever), and Kerry's past likely involves affairs between consenting adults. But allegations of Arnold Schwarzenegger's groping of women over the past few decades would be of some relevance because they involved unwanted sexual advances which included physical contact. If a man can be fired from his job (or even sued) for sexual harrassment, logic dictates that he can be denied an elected post. Even then, however, such a scandal should only have been one factor in considering Arnold's candidacy (Paula Jones' accusations weren't the only issue for Bill Clinton), and it only became important to me because Arnold himself offered few concrete ideas for solving California's budget crisis, leaving nothing to take priority over his indiscretions.

Jack Ryan seems like a jerk. John Kerry may or may not have been a jerk. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill Clinton were most definitely jerks. But don't bend over backwards to let me know; I've got more important things on my mind.

Is there any way that disclosing the details of Kerry's divorce would benefit the country, or is it merely another attempt to discredit the Democratic candidate?



I agree with amf.

Ronald Reagan was married to Jane Wyman. They divorced, and he married Nancy Davis. Did that disqualify him to be President?

As far as the Jack Ryan/Jeri Ryan divorce details, I have purposefully ignored the story.

Ditto for details on any divorce. It fails the 'So What?' test. I fail to see how anything that could be learned about John Kerry's divorce could possibly be relevant to anything that matters. Ditto for Jack Ryan's. It would be nice if those involved in extracting such info could devote their time and energy to researching their stances on important issues, and less time on trivial private issues. There is nothing in Kerry's divorce records that could sway me nearly as much as information on his stances on much more pressing national matters.

I am just left to wonder--does the press just think we're that shallow? or are we really?

As countless others have posted here, Ryan & Kerry have broken no laws, and the "so what" limit test has not been met in any way. I think the records will be relased and that the media will find.......nothing. Sometimes a divorce is better than a sham marriage. People realize it and I know people who have become better friends after a divorce.

After posting this and reflecting I tend to agree with most of you on the non-news aspect. However, I do think that the press has a point in one area - these are not private records being released. They are public records which had been sealed. If you or I were divorced those proceedings would be public court records. It's a small difference but one that the press could play into gaining release of the records.

No one is suggesting that simply being divorced disqualifies you from anything. It's the appearance that you are hiding some (public) records from the public is what could make it look to have impropriety.

Updated with judge's words:

If the public's right to know outweighs the candidate's right to privacy for Jack Ryan, would this also be true for John Kerry? I don't believe that public's "right to know" outweighs anyone's privacy. I agree with those who stated the Ryan case set a horrible precedent. The spouse's compliance is irrelevant. How many ex-spouses don't hold animosity towards their former partner? Very few...amicable divorces are unusual.

Should John Kerry's divorce records be made public before he is potentially elected to the highest office in the land? Absolutely not. Chat shows like 'Ricky Lake' are the only reason this is even subject matter for debate. We have been desensitized to the most basic elements of respect for individual privacy. Hey! Let's ask Jack Ryan's wife why she accompanied him to those sex bars! Did he bind her up and drag her in kicking and screaming? If not, why did she go if it disgusted her? What does all of this say about HER? Why make this knowledge public to begin with? WHy are we having this discussion, and what does it have to do with politics?

In case everyone has yet to hear, the records were already public in the first place. I'm proud to announce that my prediction on the first page discussion of this thread was correct I know, I know, you dont' have to say a word.


(Ron Gunzburger of politics1.com)

Separated for six years?? Someone find Ken Starr, that looks suspicous!

I give - Uncle.

But I would love to see those finances...if a lowly politician divorces a woman worth a few hundred million, just who pays alimony to whom?