Paul Mulshine says that Torricelli wasn't just corrupt--he was power mad.

"No one would ever really understand why I couldn't give an accounting of the day," the future senator wrote of his youthful reveries. "But how could one explain dreams of life and plans of empire with a story of quiet hours in a nearby stream?"

How indeed? American kids are not supposed to spend their after-school hours indulging in "plans of empire." The typical kid at that age wants to grow up to be a jet pilot or a pro athlete, Chuck Yeager or Joe Montana. Little Bobby Torricelli's role models seem to have included Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte.

The little boy was thinking big. Perhaps too big. Emperors are by their very nature imperious. Politicians in a democracy, however, generally try to charm their way to power. Not Torricelli. The scream was his regular mode of communication, followed by the threat. "I'll call your editor!" was the response I got from him once when I asked a simple question. I pointed out to him that he could just answer the question. That was not his style. He wanted to silence the questioner.

This reminds me very much of the biographies of Bill Clinton, who clearly had ambitions to be President from a very early age. A person who is that pathologically power hungry is, in my opinion, a danger to the Republic. I'd much prefer the reluctant but competent candidate.

Unfortunately, our system is set up to select not those are best at being President, but those who are best at, and most enthusiastic about, running for the office. Hence Clinton's eight-year long, never-ending campaign.

I'm not sure how you'd detect or enforce it, but a Constitutional amendment that disallowed anyone from being President who wanted it that much would be a salutory thing. George Washington established a good model, but we've strayed far from it.

In a voting republic the point is not to mandate by law but to educate, so that a minimum of laws can do the job. May I express my appreciation for the education you provide?

Well, that's why I have a comments section. :-)

Thank you.

A friend of mine commented that the 1992 and 1996 elections were intelligence tests, and 43% and 49% of the voters flunked. We gotta do something about K-12 education.