At a guess, from our jousting, I'd say we are more in agreement than most members that spin and lying knows no limits in politics. It's pervasive as rain with Democrats and Republicans as it is with all our parties in Canada. But, no, human nature what it is, I don't think the electorate would respond differently to the examples we've cited, depending on national moods at the time.

I used Bush as another example of your post that it's easy to speculate on what would be found if the Obama files were opened to the public: What would be the response to a presidential nominee if files revealed he appeared to seek refugee in the Guard and washed out for moral weakness with his country at war?

I'd also offer that responses differ with generations. Modernity makes surprises. With apologies for using the time-worn politician's tactic of not replying to hypothetical questions, but not following it, it's my guess the Vietnam generation would have judged more harshly than the current one with issues prominent among chattering classes but of less concern in the polls.

Ken, when I hunt and fish, the catch is a dividend, the experience comes first, as I imagine it does with you. Preferring waxed cotton, split cane and leather doesn't confer that you have or need them. If you have them you don't need them for the experience. Same with spinning and lying in politics. I know there are bugs under a rock in the back forties, have no interest in looking for or at them.

I coined in Misfires "the punk's game." It's not original. I got it from Dad. I was able to confirm it from working on six-month contract as a consultant in communications to the federal government after years of observing it in party back rooms. What a lousy business.